City School Expenditures 

The Variability and Interrelation 
of the Various Items 



By 

George Drayton Stray er, A.B. 



Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements 

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

in the Faculty of Philosophy 

Columbia University 



1905 



LB 2829 
.S8 
Copy l 



City School Expenditures 

The Variability and Interrelation 
of the Various Items 



By 

George Drayton Stray er, A.B. 



Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements 

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

in the Faculty of Philosophy 

Columbia University 



1905 






Gift 
Carnegis last. 





CONTENTS 








PAGE 


Introduction 




I 


The Problem . 




3 


Data 




10 


Variability 




42 


Relationships . 




80 


Conclusion 




100 


Acknowledgment 




. 103 


Vita . 




104 



City School Expenditures 



THE VARIABILITY AND INTERRELATION OF 
THE PRINCIPAL ITEMS 

By GEORGE DRAYTON STRAYER, A.B., Johns Hopkins University ; 
Fellow in Education, Teachers College, 1904-05 

INTRODUCTION 

The importance of the subject-matter of Mr. Strayer's in- 
vestigation needs no comment. The methods, being in some 
respects new in the literature of education, deserve some com- 
ment. 

It is impossible to gain adequate insight into facts as com- 
plex as those of school expenses and school achievements with- 
out some use of technical statistical methods. If Mr. Strayer's 
report puzzles some readers by its tables of frequency, its con- 
stant use of the median rather than the average as a measure of 
central tendency, its coefficients of correlation and their correc- 
tions, it is of necessity. The facts could not otherwise be 
handled properly — in some cases not at all. 

The one matter of technique which needs explanation and 
perhaps apology is the use of the Pearson Coefficient of Correla- 
tion. This measure of the general relation of a deviation of 
the amount of one item in the budget from the typical amount 
of that item to the deviation in the same city of some other 
item from its typical amount, is indispensable but necessarily 
obscure. It is indispensable: (1) because it presents to the 
mind in a single figure a mass of individual relationships which 



2 City School Expenditures 

in their detailed form leave no definite impress on even the 
most skilled examiner of statistics (e. g., let any one try to 
measure accurately the facts of the relation of teachers' salaries 
to janitors' salaries without its aid); (2) because it makes all 
relationships between any one and any other of the same order 
of facts comparable and commensurate (e. g., let any one 
without its use say whether the total cost per pupil is more or 
less closely followed by the cost per pupil of text-books and 
supplies than by that for janitors' salaries). It is necessarily 
obscure; (1) because the general tendency for which it stands 
represents a result which an indefinite number of different 
arrangements of relationships could all equally give, and (2) 
because the variability of the individual relationships, from 
which it rescues us in part, still remains to prevent any prophecy 
of the coefficient's implication concerning any special case other 
than a most complicated statement of probabilities. Readers 
who are familiar with modern statistics will have gained a con- 
crete acquaintance with coefficients which will make tables 
XXXVII, XXXIX, etc., clear and emphatic. To others they 
cannot be. On the whole, although the arithmetical labor of 
calculating these coefficients is enormous, they should be used 
in all studies of relationships of mental and social traits. Those 
calculated by Mr. Strayer will increase in importance as we 
obtain from the budgets of private schools, colleges, business cor- 
porations, and the like, similar coefficients to compare with them. 
One other feature of Mr. Strayer's method of presentation 
needs comment — his careful arrangement of the individual 
measures from which all his later results are derived. The pub- 
lication of these in full enables any critic to verify the conclu- 
sions, any investigator of the same problem to combine new 
data with them so as to get better advantages from both, and 
any investigator of other problems to use in his own way a body 
of facts which could be obtained now only at a cost of hundreds 
of hours, and in a few years could not be obtained at all. The 
reader who is irritated, as well as awed, by the pages of indi- 
vidual records must remember that in the social sciences lump- 
ing facts into averages and totals conceals far more truth than 
it reveals, and destroys half the value of the record to the expert. 

Edward L. Thorndike 
April, 1905 



City School Expenditures 



THE PROBLEM 

The financial problem in connection with our public schools 
is fundamental. We may devise improved courses of study, 
we may provide for the proper training of teachers, our aim 
may be sound and our method well grounded, and still we must 
have the money to build and properly equip and maintain 
buildings, to provide the necessary books and supplies, to hire 
the competent supervisors and teachers, or all will count for 
naught. We believe that our schools have advanced in this 
country during the past fifty years, and we know that along 
with this advance the amount of money spent for public educa- 
tion has increased in a ratio altogether out of proportion to the 
number of people educated. Still further, we believe that those 
sections of our country which to-day spend the most money for 
public education are the sections which are doing the best work. 
Especially with the growth of cities and the great increase of 
urban population has the amount of money spent for public 
schools grown larger. But even the great increase in expendi- 
ture, amounting in some cases to ten- or even twenty -fold during 
the past fifty years, has not been sufficient to satisfy the de- 
mands of those who believe in the efficacy and necessity of 
public education in our modern democracy. 

President Eliot, in his address before the Connecticut State 
Teachers' Association in 1902, argued for more liberal expendi- 
tures for public education, in order that we might accomplish 
by this means certain desirable ends which we have as yet 
failed to attain. He sums up his argument in one part of his 
address as follows: "My first argument in support of this 
proposition is that, as a nation and on the whole, in spite of 
many successes, we have met with many failures of various 
sorts in our efforts to educate the whole people, and still see 
before us many unsurmounted difficulties. It is indisputable 
that we have experienced a profound disappointment in the 
results thus far obtained from a widely diffused popular educa- 
tion. It was a stupendous undertaking at the start, and the 
difficulties have increased with every generation. Our fore- 
fathers expected miracles of prompt enlightenment; and we are 
seriously disappointed that popular education has not defended 



4 City School Expenditures 

us against barbarian vices like drunkenness and gambling, 
against increase of crime and insanity, and against innumerable 
delusions, impostures, and follies. We ought to spend more 
public money on schools, because the present expenditures do 
not produce all the good results which were expected and may 
reasonably be aimed at." l 

In a second address to the New Hampshire State Teachers' 
Association in the same year, President Eliot maintained that 
more money should be given to the public schools, because of 
the great gains that have been made in public education. 
Some of the improvements to which he called attention 
were the establishment of kindergartens, improvement in 
the curricula of elementary schools, increase in the number 
of high schools, improvement in school buildings, new kinds 
of schools (manual training, the mechanic arts high school, 
the evening school, and the vacation school), improvement 
in normal schools, improved methods of selecting and ap- 
pointing teachers, pensions for teachers, increased employment 
of educational experts in supervising and executive functions 
of urban school systems, the increased use of high schools, the 
introduction of the costly elective system, better university 
teachers, improved professional training, increased opportunity 
for the higher education of women, and increased attention 
given to the welfare of the body. Every one of these educa- 
tional improvements, says President Eliot, "has been costly; 
but every one has justified itself in the eyes of the tax-payers, 
or of those who voluntarily pay for it; not one would now be 
recalled, and the total result encourages the expectation that 
large new expenditures would commend themselves to the 
people at the start, and in the end would prove to be both 
profitable in the material sense and civilizing in the humane 
sense. 

"You have doubtless noticed that the gains I have reported 
are chiefly in education above fourteen years of age. There has 
been improvement in the first eight grades since 1870, but it 
is relatively small. Yet the great majority of American chil- 
dren do not get beyond the eighth grade. Philanthropists, 
social philosophers, and friends of free institutions, is that the 
fit educational outcome of a century of democracy in an unde- 
1 Eliot, More Money for the Public Schdols, p. 23. 



City School Expenditures 5 

veloped country of immense natural resources? Leaders and 
guides of the people, is that what you think just and safe? 
People of the United States, is that what you desire and 
intend?" 1 

There is nothing unusual nor radical in this appeal of Presi- 
dent Eliot. In almost every educational journal one can find 
arguments for increased expenditures for teachers' salaries. In 
many states laws have been passed or proposed which declare 
that all text-books shall be furnished free to children. In every 
community new school buildings are built better than the old. 
More attention is given to proper heating, lighting, and ven- 
tilating. All this means an increase in school expenditures. 
Along with this great increase in expenditure and with the de- 
mand for still greater sums of money for public education, 
there has arisen the necessity for greater ability in the handling 
of school moneys, and, on the part of the tax-payers who furnish 
the money, a desire to know how the money is spent and what 
results are obtained. 

Those who have controlled our free public schools have 
always had the double function of attending to the business 
affairs of the school system, as well as looking after the matter 
of instruction. In the early days, when the chief expenditure 
was for the teacher's salary and there were very few other items 
of expense, it was a comparatively simple matter to administer 
the finances of the then small school systems. With the great 
growth of cities and school systems, together with the enormous 
increase in amount and variety of expenditures, the problem of 
business administration has become very complex. This de- 
mand for expert ability in dealing with the business affairs of 
the schools has been met in different ways. In some instances 
a special committee of the school board or committee has been 
given charge of the financial affairs of the schools. In many 
cases the superintendent has not only supervised instruction, 
but has also been the business manager for the school system. 
In other cases, notably in Cleveland and Indianapolis, a special 
executive officer has been provided to look after the business 
affairs. There is a growing feeling that the business affairs of 
the large school systems demand expert ability, and that it 
is financially profitable for a large city to employ a business 
1 Eliot, More Money for the Public Schools, pp. 125-127. 



6 City School Expenditures 

director to look after the financial interests of the school system. 
The Chicago Commission, appointed in 1898, recommended that 
the f miction of the school board "be chiefly legislative, the 
executive work being delegated to the superintendent and busi- 
ness manager." x However desirable it may be to have a special 
executive officer whose duty it shall be to look after the business 
affairs of the schools, the fact remains that in vastly the greater 
majority of cities of over ten thousand inhabitants this work 
is now done by the school board, by the superintendent of 
schools, or by the board and the superintendent in co-opera- 
tion with each other. 

In the year 1899 there reported to the Department of Super- 
intendence of the National Educational Association the Com- 
mittee on Uniform Financial Reports, which had been appointed 
at the previous meeting. Something of the purpose for which 
this Committee was appointed, as well as their recommendations, 
may be found in the following quotation: 

"While local conditions enter into the necessities for ex- 
pense in any public school system, yet one of the most useful 
means of estimating proper expenditures should be afforded by 
a study of the financial school reports of other similar cities or 
districts. As these reports are at present made, they are of 
little use in this respect. Items given in one report are omitted 
from another. Items of income and outgo are differently 
grouped in different reports, and the statement is made in such 
a way that it is impossible to separate the items for the purpose 
of re-classification. In getting the cost of education per child, 
different items are put into the total cost of education, which 
forms the dividend, while the divisor is sometimes the number 
enrolled, sometimes the average number in daily membership, 
sometimes the average number in daily attendance. 

"One of the chief studies of a wise administrator of schools 
is to make the cost of education per child as low as is consistent 
with the best service. Attention to this and to the compara- 
tive study of the reports for a period of years, now that most 
of our school systems are established on a somewhat similar 
plan, should give an idea of the average or normal cost of edu- 
cation per child. Having this, the manager of schools may 
know how expense in his system differs from this normal stan- 
1 Report of the Chicago Educational Commission. 



City School Expenditures 7 

dard, and, if not normal, why it is above or below. This knowl 
edge cannot be arrived at, however, until the same items are 
included when comparing cost of education, and the same divi- 
sor is used when obtaining the average. By careful compara- 
tive study, railroad men know the average cost of hauling 
freight per ton per mile, and the cost per mile of transporting a 
passenger. Those administering schools should be as well in- 
formed upon the cost of education." * Concerning the form of 
report recommended by this Committee, we shall have some- 
thing to say later. 

Just at this point it is interesting to verify their statement 
with regard to the non-uniformity of reports. Unfortunately, 
the work of this Committee seems to have had little effect upon 
the reports which have been issued since 1899. The sources of 
information concerning school expenditures are: the Report of 
the Commissioner of Education for the United States, the sev- 
eral State Reports, and the City Reports. In the Report of the 
Commissioner of Education, school expenditures for cities of 
over 8000 inhabitants are classified under four heads, namely: 
(1) permanent investment and lasting improvements, (2) teach- 
ing and supervision, (3) current and incidental expenses, and 
(4) evening schools. It is hardly necessary to state that if any 
comparison among different cities is to be made, a further dis- 
tribution of these items is necessary. 

The item "teaching and supervision" contains several items 
of expenditure which should be compared with each other; 
while the item "current and incidental expenses" is so general 
that we are unable to tell anything about the use which is made 
of the money. 

If we turn to State Reports we are again disappointed. The 
Massachusetts State Report classifies city school expenditures 
under the following heads: teachers' salaries; conveyance of 
pupils; fuel and care of premises ; school committee, including 
clerical aid and truant service ; superintendent of schools ; text- 
books and school supplies; school sundries; alterations and 
permanent repairs; new schoolhouses ; and ordinary repairs. 
This classification is superior to that found in the Report of the 
Commissioner of Education, because of the more detailed infor- 
mation which it gives. One might wish, however, that fuel and 
• Proceedings of the National Educational Association, i8qq, p. 345. 



8 City School Expenditures 

the care of school premises could be given as separate items; 
and when we remember the difference in the salaries paid to 
high school teachers and to elementary school teachers, it would 
seem that these items should be further subdivided. 

In the Pennsylvania State Report expenditures are classified 
as follows: schoolhouses, purchasing, building, renting, etc.; 
teachers' wages; cost of school text -books; cost of school sup- 
plies other than text -books including maps, globes, etc. ; fuel, 
contingencies, fees of collectors, and all other expenses. It is 
easily seen that the Pennsylvania Report gives less definite in- 
formation than the Massachusetts Report, and that a comparison 
of the expenditures for cities of the two States could not be 
made from the material available. 

The New Jersey State Report classifies expenditures as fol- 
lows: teachers' salaries ; fuel and janitors' salaries; building and 
repairing; debt and interest ; manual training; text-books, ap- 
paratus, and supplies; transportation of pupils; other school 
purposes. Again it is hardly necessary to suggest that the item 
"teachers' salaries" is not sufficiently specific for the purpose of 
comparison. It may be well enough for the information of 
patrons to account for fuel and janitors' salaries under one head, 
but if one were interested in the relation between janitors' sal- 
aries and the amount of fuel consumed, this classification would 
scarcely answer the purpose. 

In the New York State Reports there is still less information 
given concerning the money expended by cities for school 
purposes. 

The City Reports, so far as I have been able to examine them, 
are little more satisfactory than the State and National Reports. 
Items which are given in one report, are omitted or combined 
with other items in another report in such manner as to make 
comparisons impossible. Frequently there is included under a 
single head an item of expenditure which properly belongs to 
current expense for maintenance and operation, and another 
which might better be classified as falling under the head of 
permanent equipment. 

In about half of the reports which I have examined, teachers' 
salaries are given as a single item. Miscellaneous expenses, 
that is, the money which is spent but not definitely accounted 
for, amounts to from one to twenty-five per cent, of the entire 



City School Expenditures g 

expenditure. In one report, school furniture and rent are given 
as one item. In another, janitors' and truant officers' salaries 
are given as a single item, without any explanation as to whether 
the janitor acts as truant officer or not. Text-books, supplies, 
permanent equipment or apparatus make one item of another 
report. Fuel and repairs are grouped together in another, and 
so on through the entire list. Mr. Jesse D. Burks, in an unpub- 
lished study, found three thousand different heads under which 
information concerning city school systems was given in the 
annual reports. 

It was because of this state of affairs that the Committee of 
the National Educational Association on Uniform Financial 
Reports was appointed; and it was with the same problem in 
view that President Butler, in a discussion of a paper on "Taxa- 
tion and Teachers' Salaries" before the National Educational 
Association in 1902, said: "What we need and need very badly 
in this country, is not only a more scientific system of taxation, 
but more adequate and exact information as to what should be 
the relative cost of various elements in the disbursements of our 
cities, towns, and villages. For example, no one knows just 
what ought to be the normal cost of the public school system of 
a city of 250,000 people. We know how rapidly such popula- 
tion increases, and how many children of school age come under 
the care of the community each year, but we do not know what 
the school system should normally cost, or what should be the 
proportion of its cost to the total cost of maintaining the local 
government. Nor do we know what proportion of a city school 
system should be charged to teachers' salaries, what to supplies, 
what to supervision, and what to the other items which make 
up the total bill of expense. Here is a field of investigation 
which is of surpassing interest, not only to school officer and 
superintendent, but to every intelligent citizen. It cannot be 
entered upon too soon, for the subject is one that goes to the 
very bottom of our public life." » 

The problem which we have undertaken in this investiga- 
tion is a part of that which President Butler so clearly outlined. 
This study will deal with the distribution of the money 
spent for schools among the various items of the budget. 
Whether or not we may hope to determine the norm which 

1 Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 1902, p. 329. 



IO 



City School Expenditures 



should be followed, of this we are certain, that some informa- 
tion concerning current practice can be secured, and that a 
solution to some of the problems which arise may be suggested 
because of this more adequate knowledge of present conditions. 

DATA 

The data which furnish the basis of this study were secured 
from fifty -eight cities of between ten and fifty thousand inhabi- 
tants, located in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
New York, and New Jersey. To the Superintendent of Schools 
in each city the following blank form was sent : 



©jcrlwrabia WLnivRV&itvi 
Hew ffavfc. 

Data for research in Educational Administration. 

tures for the year igo and igo , in the city of 

state of 



School Expendi- 



No. 



I. Current Expenses : 

i. Salaries for supervision (Superintendent, Assistant, Dep- 
uty, or Associate Superintendents, and Principals) 

2. Salaries for business administration (salaries of members of 

the Board of Education, Business Manager, Superinten- 
dent of Buildings and Grounds, Clerks to Board of Edu- 
cation, etc., etc.) 

3. Salaries of Janitors (number and aggregate of their 

salaries) 

4. Salaries of Matrons or Maids in connection with Kin- 

dergartens and Baths (number and aggregate of 
their salaries) 

5. Salaries of Truant Officers (number and aggregate of 

their salaries) 

6. Salaries for Teaching: 

Number of Elementary School (Primary and Gram- 
mar) Teachers and aggregate of their salaries. . . 

Number of High School Teachers and aggregate of 
their salaries 

Number of Kindergarten Teachers and aggregate of 
their salaries 

Number of Evening School Teachers and aggregate 
of their salaries 



City School Expenditures 



ii 



ii. 

12. 

13- 

14. 

IS- 
16. 

i7- 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 



Salaries for Teaching: (Continued.) No. 

Number of Truant School Teachers and aggregate 

of their salaries 

Number of Teachers' Training School Teachers 

and aggregate of their salaries 

Number of Special Teachers or supervisors of spe- 
cial subjects (Manual Training, Cooking, Sewing, 
Drawing, Music, Nature Study, Penmanship, 
Physical Education, etc.) and aggregate of their 

salaries 

Number of Vacation School and Play Ground 

Teachers and aggregate of their salaries 

What are the daily wages of (1) Carpenters, $ 

(2) Bricklayers, $ (3) Day Laborers, $ 

in your city? 

Text-books, including copy- and drawing-books and re- 
pairs to books 

Supplies consumed by pupils (paper, pencils, ink, chalk, 
pens and pen-holders, erasers, laboratory, manual train- 
ing, cooking, and kindergarten supplies, etc., etc.) 

Janitors' Supplies (brooms, brushes, towels and washing of 

towels, toilet paper, soap, etc., etc.) 

Supplies for Board of Education, Superintendents', and 

Principals' offices 

Fuel .' 

Light and Power 

Water 

Ordinary repairs to Buildings and Grounds 

Rent 

School Census 

Transportation of Pupils 

Insurance 

Freight and Expressage 

Printing and Advertising 

Telegraph, Postage, etc 

22. Telephone 

23. Other Current Expenses: 



Are books furnished free to indigents ? to all stu- 
dents? What supplies are furnished free to in- 
digents? 



.to all students?. 



«a 



12 



City School Expenditures 



II. Plant and Permanent Equipment: 

i. New buildings and sites, furniture and furnishings for new 
buildings, and permanent improvements to buildings 












3. Permanent equipment or apparatus (scientific apparatus, 
tools or apparatus for manual training and cooking, type- 
writers for commercial departments, maps, charts, globes, 






























VI. All other Expenditures : 

(If important expenditures have been omitted in the above 
classification, will you kindly itemize such expendi- 
tures below.) 


















Total Expenditures for the year: 






VIII. Paid for Evening Schools [total current expenses, included in 






IX. Paid for Teachers Training Schools [total current expenses, in- 













Cities of between ten and fifty thousand inhabitants were 
chosen because this is the type city in the United States. Of 
562 cities of over eight thousand inhabitants, according to the 
census of 1900, 481 cities are between eight and fifty thousand. 
Not only is the city above fifty thousand much less common 
than the city of fewer inhabitants, but it is more apt to present 
problems peculiar to itself, and hence does not admit so well of 
comparison. Even if it had been possible to secure information 
from as many of the larger cities, they would necessarily have 
been so scattered, and conditions of climate, rate of growth in 
population, general economic welfare, tradition with regard to 
public education, etc., would have been so different that a 
comparison could not so well have been made. 

After having chosen the size of city to be studied, the terri- 



City School Expenditures 13 

tory was limited to the states named above because it was felt 
that in this region conditions were very similar. 

In the territory covered there are 117 cities of between ten 
and fifty thousand. For the school year 1902—1903 the blank 
form given above was filled out by fifty-eight cities. For the 
school year 1 903-1 904 similar data were secured from thirty of 
these cities before this investigation was completed. 

The form of report used was drawn up with two purposes 
kept constantly in mind, namely: first, that the several items 
of expenditure should be so reported that they would admit of 
comparison; second, that as far as possible the whole expendi- 
ture should be reported under proper heads — that the item 
generally termed "miscellaneous expenses" should, so far as 
possible, be eliminated. It will be noticed, however, that a 
place for reporting such expenditures was allowed to remain on 
the blank. In preparing this form, we considered carefully the 
form of report recommended by the Committee of the National 
Educational Association, and have in some parts followed their 
classification. On the other hand, it seemed to us that in more 
than one instance their classification was not the best, because 
it did not provide for sufficient detail. The first item under 
expenditures in that report is salaries of teachers and super- 
visors. Now, if a comparison is to be made, it seems to us that 
this item needs to be further subdivided. It may be that one 
city is paying entirely too much for supervision. We may want 
to discover if there is any relation between a large amount of 
money spent for supervision and the amount spent for school 
supplies. In order to discover these things, it will be necessary 
for us to subdivide the item of "salaries." 

Again, in order that we may be able to make a valid com- 
parison, it has seemed wise to divide the salaries for teaching 
into several items, namely: the amount paid elementary school 
teachers; high school teachers; kindergarten, evening school, 
truant school, and teachers' training school teachers; special 
teachers, or supervisors of special subjects; and teachers in 
vacation schools and play grounds. As stated above, we can 
only compare the item of salaries when we know in what way 
that money was spent. 

In the report of the National Educational Association Com- 
mittee, supplies are classified under two heads — stationery and 



14 City School Expenditures 

other supplies for schools. We have thought it best to classify- 
all supplies consumed by pupils under a single head, including 
in this item paper, pencils, ink, chalk, pens, pen-holders, black- 
board erasers, laboratory, manual training, cooking, and kinder- 
garten supplies, etc. In order that we may be able to use this 
item and that of text-books intelligently, our form contains the 
following questions : Are text -books furnished free to indigents ? 
Are they furnished free to all pupils? What supplies are fur- 
nished free to indigents ? to all students ? 

Other supplies are classified under two heads: janitors' sup- 
plies and supplies for the board of education, superintendents', 
and principals' offices. Besides the item of janitors' salaries, 
we include, as a separate item, salaries of matrons or maids in 
connection with the kindergartens or baths. 

In addition to the item of fuel and light (which we classify 
under two heads, namely, fuel, and light and power) and or- 
dinary repairs to buildings given in the National Educational 
Association Report, we have seen fit to classify current expenses 
under the following additional heads: water; rent; school 
census; transportation of pupils; insurance; freight and ex- 
pressage; printing and advertising; telephone, telegraph, postage, 
etc.; and other current expenses. We did not expect that all 
would report expenditures under each of the above heads, but 
we do think that if there are such expenses it is best that they 
be reported separately. 

Our second large heading we have designated as "plant and 
permanent equipment." Under this head we make four sub- 
divisions, namely: (i) new buildings and sites, furniture and 
furnishings for new buildings, and permanent improvements to 
buildings and grounds; (2) furniture exclusive of that put in 
new buildings; (3) permanent equipment or apparatus, includ- 
ing scientific apparatus, tools and apparatus for manual train- 
ing and cooking, typewriters for commercial departments, maps, 
charts, globes, etc.; (4) reference and library books. 

In asking for the amount paid on principal of bonded debt, 
on principal of loans, for interest, the total current expenses for 
evening schools, and for teachers' training schools, we have fol- 
lowed the recommendation of the National Educational Asso- 
ciation Committee. 

In another part of the report, we ask for the wages of car- 



City School Expenditures 15 

penters, bricklayers, and day laborers in the city from which 
information is received, hoping in this case to be able to infer 
something concerning the cost of living in that city, which will 
in turn enable us to form a correct idea concerning the salaries 
paid to teachers. 

Of the fifty-eight cities reporting the first year, thirty were 
able to report their total expenditure under the classification 
given, without resorting to the use of the ambiguous heading 
"miscellaneous." Of the remaining twenty-eight cities, sixteen 
reported less than 2 % under the head "miscellaneous"; ten 
others reported less than 5 %; and the remaining cities re- 
ported 5.14 % and 6.75 % for unclassified expenditures. For the 
second year, of the thirty cities reporting, eighteen report nothing 
under "miscellaneous"; and of the remaining twelve, eight re- 
port 1 % or less, three 2 %, and one 3.76 % under this head. 

In order to compare the expenditures in the different cities 
with but two years' data, it seemed best to base all compari- 
sons upon the cost of maintenance and operation, that is, the ex- 
penditures which are absolutely necessary in order to keep the 
schools going, together with the amount spent for keeping the 
plant in proper repair. Under this head we included furniture 
put into old buildings, that is, new furniture put in to replace 
old ; and also money spent for apparatus and for reference and li- 
brary books. These expenditures, we believe, are properly classi- 
fied as expenditures for maintenance and operation, since they 
seldom represent any very large increase in permanent equip- 
ment. In the printed form given above, they were placed under 
"plant and permanent equipment," because the writer be- 
lieved that it was customary to place them there and that 
proper returns could be most easily secured by classifying them 
in this way. To have taken into consideration the amount 
spent for new buildings or grounds, or for permanent improve- 
ments, would have been unfair to some cities, because in some 
cases a much larger proportion of such expenditures is met by 
an issue of bonds than in others. The item of interest is not 
included in the cost of maintenance and operation for a similar 
reason. This item is sometimes included in the public school 
budget, while in other cases it is paid by the city. On this 
point the National Educational Association Committee on Uni- 
form Financial Reports says : 

"Expenditures seem to fall into three classes: the usual 



1 6 City School Expenditures 

current expenditures necessary for the maintenance of schools ; 
expenditures for sites, buildings, permanent improvements and 
equipment; other expenditures which, for various reasons, are 
not put in either of the two preceding classes. 

' ' For the purpose of this report the first of these classes is by 
far the most important, for it would probably be conceded that 
from this item of current expense should be determined the cost 
of education per child, the most important item to be shown." x 

After having determined the classification to be used, and 
that the total expenditures for maintenance and operation 
should serve as the basis for comparison, the question which 
next arises is, "How shall the separate items be compared as 
among the different cities?" It has been common to compare 
the expenditures for different cities on the basis of the cost per 
pupil in daily attendance. We shall use this method, and, in 
addition, it seems well to compare the different items on a 
slightly different basis, namely, the cost per pupil based upon a 
figure half-way between the average daily attendance and the 
average daily enrolment. In discussing this point, the National 
Educational Association Committee on Uniform Financial Re- 
ports says: 

"For many reasons No. 39" (average number in daily mem- 
bership, all schools) "seems the most suitable divisor. If com- 
puted in a uniform manner, the figures showing number in 
average daily membership would most nearly show the require- 
ments for school rooms, furniture, supplies, and teachers. But 
it is not true that these figures are obtained by the same pro- 
cess, or based upon the same facts, in the different school sys- 
tems. Usage varies so in computing membership in different 
schools — pupils in some cases being counted as members of the 
schools, when in other cities the same state of facts would cause 
the child to be considered as no longer a member of the school — 
that fair comparison is apparently not practicable by the use 
of this divisor. 

"Your committee is of the opinion that a divisor as little 
subject to misunderstanding as possible, and one based upon 
facts which are obtained in the same way everywhere, is of the 
first importance. The members believe that this is provided 
by item 40, average number in daily attendance, all schools, 
1 Report of the National Educational Association, i8gg, p. 347. 



City School Expenditures 17 

and we have, therefore, made that item the divisor to be used, 
in connection with items 12 and 13, to obtain what shall be 
known as the 'cost of education.' " 1 

The school must provide teachers, buildings, and equipment 
for more than the average daily attendance, and yet it is seldom 
that provision is made for a number equal to the average daily 
enrolment. It seems, therefore, that the figure half-way be- 
tween the two is a better figure than either of the others. It 
was impossible to secure the figures for the average daily enrol- 
ment in some cases, and for this reason the average cost per 
pupil for the first and second year will be based upon the average 
daily attendance, even though we do not believe it is so good a 
figure as the other. 

Still another basis for comparison recommends itself — the 
apportionment of money spent for specific purposes expressed 
in per cents of the total expenditures for maintenance and 
operation. This last classification offers a particularly interest- 
ing basis for comparison and is entirely free from obscurity. 
The question is simply one of distribution of the money that is 
spent among the several items of the budget. Just as an in- 
dividual may spend too much for clothes, for food, for books, 
or for amusement, in the same manner it is possible for a city 
to spend too great a proportion of its money for janitors, for 
fuel, for school supplies, or even for supervision. 

The information which has been collected is given in the 
tables which follow. Throughout the study each city is known 
by the number which is given it in the first table. 

These tables (Tables I to IX) contain every fact with which 
we work. Any one can, from the data here given, repeat all our 
calculations. Moreover, it may happen that some one else may 
wish to use the information which furnishes the basis of this 
study for a different purpose. It is unfortunate that many 
studies, involving the use of data which were secured with con- 
siderable difficulty, have been published without giving the data 
upon which the conclusions were based. Such an omission 
makes it impossible for any one else to verify the conclusions 
which the author has reached, and denies to others the use of 
valuable data which they might use for purposes quite as im- 
portant as those for which the information was first collected. 
1 Report of the National Educational Association, i8gg, pp. 349-352. 



TABLE I 

Gross expenditures for maintenance and operation for the school year 1902-03. 
Fifty-eight cities of from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The amounts are scored in dollars. 



>, 

o 
o 


"3 


M 

a 




u 

0> 





O 


Books, 
plies. 


"p. 
p. 

W 


c 

-M u 
d O 

■eg.s 


3 


U 

1 


PL, 

*d 


,2 


H 




P. 







a 


x 3 


u 




fe 


CI) 






H 


3 

W 




1—1 






'5 

ni 
1—1 


'd-d 




i 
3 


I. 


76,252 


47,712 


2,200 


392 


5,033 


300 


3,919 2,531 


664 


83 


3,473 


359 


2. 


60,492 


38,015 


2,000 


150 




350 


2,690 662 


300 




10,163 


286 


3- 


52,708 


35,918 


2,100 




3,725 




3,235 


530 




2,481 2,399 


4- 


153,729 


98,028 


16,570 


550 


10,950 


400 


5,194 4,449 


1,078 




7,357 


353 


5- 


121,400 


89,100 


2,700 


650 


8,000 


950 


7,300 


200 


300 


7,400 


600 


6. 


50,613 


36,860 


2,100 




2,660 




3,315 


100 


50 


2,079 


130 


7- 


85,975 


57,320 


7,600 


500 


9,113 


810 


2,401 3,596 


816 




3,560 




8. 


60,473 


35,150 


8,200 




8,675 


750 


3,000 900 


100 


200 


3,528 


100 


9- 


100,484 


66,883 


2,800 


1,080 


7,520 


500 


6,749 






9,414 




IO 


217,991 


160,832 


3,683 


1,482 


12,886 


1,000 


5,011 7,052 


583 


913 


9,285 


572 


ii. 


82,100 


40,800 


9,490 


900 


7,500 


900 


5,500 






5,000 


500 


12. 


71,281 


45,775 


6,500 




5,402 


168 


2,075 2,660 






5,000 




13- 


95,802 


51,578 


16,660 


614 


6,587 


900 


2,493 2,706 


234 




6,309 


179 


14. 


39,960 


24,828 


2,000 




2,717 


100 


1,243 993 


109 




3,271 


200 


15. 


116,039 


82,062 


2,500 


550 


7,019 


200 


4,607 4,607 


310 




7,801 


314 


16. 


25,639 


17,290 


2,000 




1,641 


350 


742 849 






1,297 




17. 


99,717 


62,645 


7,800 


600 


7,000 


400 


2,901 3,061 




30 


7,320 


815 


18. 


43,570 


30,700 


1,950 




2,960 


100 


3,300 






2,800 




19. 


52,870 


33,250 


1,800 


350 


3,600 


70 


2,500 1,500 






3,800 




20. 


59,772 


42,730 


1,275 




3,080 


400 


1,422 929 


95 




5,896 


78 


21. 


52,178 


36,080 


6,575 


100 


3,070 


100 


800 


200 


100 


2,000 


100 


22. 


17,368 


12,856 




205 


727 




1,018 


259 


37 


714 


60 


23. 


45,745 


13,150 


13,450 


300 


6,839 


300 








4,531 




24. 


29,787 


19,296 


2,750 


450 


1,861 




200 422 


30 


30 


2,000 


136 


25. 


30,398 


21,250 


2,400 




1,500 




100 100 


30 


50 


2,000 


35 


26. 


95,064 


53,487 


15,920 


550 


5,580 


100 


1,922 2,899 


123 


91 


4,220 


143 


27. 


40,622 


22,812 


4,250 




2,951 




2,473 725 






1,899 




28. 


46,041 


30,001 


1,800 


590 


3,328 


300 


1,732 






3,474 




29. 


56,374 


34,745 


1,640 




3,944 


175 


3,847 


640 




2,870 


■~20 



TABLE I {Continued) 

Gross expenditures for maintenance and operation for the school year 1902-03 
Fifty-eight cities of from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The amounts are scored in dollars. 









3 



c 




■a 


"gei 




bo 




3 . 


.2 

31? 




nd 

ools 
tems 
n). . 


3 

3 


1-1 

as 


en 

u 

■3 
P. 
a) 

Pi 


3 

jj CD 

3 

"U r-l 
0£ O 
" O 

O 

CO 


'■£ t/i 

"tTa 
3 

u 


3 
nJ 
u 
3 

3 


a! tn 


60.2 

.si 

Ph< 


O 
A . 
. O 

.3 ** 

ft" 

of 

u 


CD 

3 



,3 
P. 

H 


O CO 

a cu 
3 « 
j5 § 
"u ft 
X 
.213 




3 

cS 
u 
of 

ft 
ft 
< 


of 2 £,■" it 
£ >> (art >> 

*3 w|^ 


I. 




4,018 


15 528 1,570 




337 


245 


53 220 1,248 


308 1,008 


35 1,503 


2. 


141 


3,249 


100 100 1,800 










35 




300 


150 


1,821 


3- 




2,044 


















275 




839 


4- 


581 


5,087 


264 100 






237 


ISO 


50 441 




546 1,306 


1,556 


5- 




1,200 


400 1,260 










40 




400 


600 


300 3,200 


6. 




2,000 




750 




94 


79 


25 


20 






350 


762 


7- 




6,356 


100 2,000 


833 


140 


492 


43 


12 




283 






8. 


200 


2,278 


100 1,088 


369 


75 


150 


50 


60 




250 


150 


100 760 


9- 


550 


150 


150 












86 4,602 






794 


10. 


1,144 11,542 


250 


974 






528 




44 










ii. 


3,500 


400 


750 


750 


100 110 


10 150 


1 


5,540 


200 




1,800 


12. 




2,500 


163 98 


690 




100 






150 ' 








1,153 


13- 


520 


2,496 


140 100 


455 1,560 158 


156 


35 


5 1,211 


451 


204 


48 874 


14. 




2,811 


48 36 


646 




134 


76 






239 


298 


140 


70 


IS- 




3,173 


800 125 


997 




159 


260 


33 


37 




100 


325 




16. 


300 


1,030 


50 


89 


















635 


17. 




3,974 


85 1,000 




190 


333 


40 


75 


225 


332 


690 


200 1,924 


18. 




1,200 


60 


300 




50 


100 


25 


25 










19. 


200 


3,000 


125 1,500 




90 


100 


15 


20 




300 


650 




20. 


531 


2,192 


225 


190 






138 




32 


557 






522 


21. 


80 


2,000 






305 


50 


30 


20 


18 




400 




150 250 


22. 




1,148 


22 33 






25 


108 


5 








150 


23- 


280 


3,216 


213 120 1,440 








15 




675 


276 


940 




24. 


277 


873 


54 




618 




91 


15 


49 


377 




250 


25- 


250 


1,800 


75 




250 


10 


250 


10 138 






50 


100 


26. 


523 


3,254 


556 281 


100 1,280 


76 


300 


50 


43 






500 3,065 808 


27. 


181 


957 


818 155 




50 




116 








369 


669 


412 


28. 


2,092 




216 194 












76 1,350 


355 


532 1,690 


29. 


158 


6,008 126 


696 




266 


220 










669 


350 



19 



TABLE I (Continued) 

Gross expenditures for maintenance and operation for the school year 1902-03. 
Fifty-eight cities of from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The amounts are scored in dollars. 



r » V • ST H w ■ 

o « 75. w wfe^l 



30. 110,846 74,946 3,000 800 7,013 1,000 1,892 3,087 765 5,481 206 

31. 70,593 39,850 2,000 700 4,650 800 3,957 8,826 225 

32. 80,361 44,437 3,000 700 4,500 400 852 1,500 301 1,500 5,249 592 

33- 21,515 14,525 2,750 300 1,320 78 149 38 25 1,072 35 

34- 49,993 32,176 2,160 600 4,060 780 25 458 300 200 5,025 108 

35- 104,414 76,142 2,100 717 6,811 750 90 411 260 5,916 282 

36. 38,677 22 809 6,700 300 1,340 120 250 80 20 2,000 271 

37. 50,462 29,874 8,502 1,017 2,656 250 1,043 3,024 

38. 24,278 15,686 1,800 934 400 50 100 155 50 1,336 

39. 51,887 32,305 5,750 500 2,700 400 909 400 3,416 

40. 54,614 34,362 2,225 694 2,172 450 945 2,282 177 4,804 

41. 87,209 56,574 3,662 1,626 4,004 84 4,952 126 20 5,294 418 

42. 89,467 48,525 13,900 1,000 4,684 1,000 4,500 3,500 500 5,000 
43- 62,348 40,642 2,200 397 4,143 500 1,166 1,053 431 67 5,520 236 
44. 48,410 30,852 2,200 300 2,930 420 569 61 750 4,844 234 
45- 88,459 59,334 2,000 150 4,730 600 4,815 1,071 250 150 3,343 806 

46. 107,537 66,153 12,200 800 4,930 540 3,076 1,854 1,008 500 4,229 128 

47- 58,427 16,294 9,500 2,108 4,931 500 1,950 1,620 9,411 347 

48. 18,402 10,745 1,800 200 1,100 244 787 250 40 30 1,131 41 

49- 14,877 9,512 1,800 100 600 200 771 150 100 52 814 

50. 81,954 51,099 5,700 1,400 2,775 500 3,685 1,303 150 5,128 214 

51. 64,465 42,350 8,950 650 3,525 425 1,200 300 150 50 3,600 70 

52. 100,305 52,500 6,625 725 7,000 600 3,000 3,500 625 450 4,500 
53-144,783 96,925 17,700 1,000 9,990 7,057 1,397 4,034 

54- 75,700 42,225 8,100 950 4,200 2,900 3,450 600 250 3,750 800 

55- 35,800 22,000 1,200 200 1,900 400 2,000 2,000 200 

56. 50,192 27,415 8,175 400 4,200 150 800 929 600 844 2,195 203 

57. 114,800 74,375 11,400 2,150 5,425 3,000 5,000 250 250 4,500 500 

58. 77,200 48,650 7,455 500 4,180 5,000 1,000 500 2,500 200 



TABLE I (Continued) 

Gross expenditures for maintenance and operation for the school year 1902-03. 
Fifty-eight cities of from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The amounts are scored in dollars. 



o 

"o 

U 

u 

e 

3 

55 


u 

a) 

Is 


w 
u 

'3 

a 
u 


a 


Pi 


3 

in 

G 

01 

O 

"0 
O 


'o 

c 
.0 

t!"ft 
3 

a 

u 

H 


Insurance. 

Freight and 
Express. 


bo- 2 

.St 
P*< 


Telegraph, Postage, 
etc. 

Telephones. 

Miscellaneous 
Expenses. 


3-~. 

P" bo 

g'J 

"e v 

E a 
fe-S 


3 

u 
a 
P, 

a 
< 


Reference and 
Library Books. 

Evening Schools 

(included in items 

already given). 


30. 




8,157 




75 




931 


660 


351 


1,021 


201 1,261 675 


3i. 




4,522 


250 270 




194 


370 


96 2,551 


886 


446 2,047 


32. 




8,541 




300 




424 151 


644 


240 3,014 2,000 


500 1,516 


33- 




1,011 




62 




50 9 


55 


21 15 








34- 




730 




266 


250 


730 


615 


96 239 


850 


325 




35- 




2,915 




185 




370 75 


678 


80 249 4,202 


590 


696 


903 


36. 


218 


877 




125 




400 75 


25 


25 100 


494 


230 


326 


37- 




1,179 








100 


291 


1,646 




878 


38. 




2,386 




50 




279 25 


148 


21 319 


50 


189 


300 


39- 




2,200 








98 


949 


60 




4 


2,200 


40. 


396 


1,909 




72 




799 47 1,102 


703 


283 


1,190 


41. 


763 


156 1,585 201 


91 


616 193 


229 138 194 100 


523 


1,277 


42. 


1,000 


2,500 








1,006 75 


260 


50 150 


1,000 


500 


317 


43- 


369 


1,546 


100 259 


171 


31 25 


310 


52 39 1,734 


417 


528 


407 


44- 


393 


2,079 1,116 






595 94 


130 


30 


284 


335 


194 


45. 




6,139 








982 108 


780 


100 1,452 


395 


150 


443 


46. 


360 


2,787 3,870 




277 


197 


571108 485 108 1,500 


600 


656 619 


47- 


120 


7,706 


382 






1,048 


662 188 1,196 


100 


364 


844 


48. 


96 


275 


450 


50 




84 30 


291 


10 591 


68 


41 


50 


49- 


27 


198 




35 




87 26 


17 


6 41 


135 


133 


73 


50. 




5,642 1,000 318 




193 50 


508 150 10 


1,729 




369 


51. 




1,200 




50 




595 35 


125 


25 90 


75 


500 


500 


52. 




15,000 








1,200 700 


800 


100 1,800 


] 


L.000 


180 


53- 




4,681 














1,999 




2,495 


54- 




3,175 






350 


600 275 


350 


50 275 915 


350 1,675 


280 1,950 


55- 




1,000 












3,500 


500 


500 


400 


56. 




2,683 








284 


152 


119 443 


300 


100 


200 


57. 




5,000 








250 250 


300 150 


1,000 


500 


500 650 


58. 


350 


4,000 


850 






100 5 


100 


10 200 




100 1,500 



TABLE II 

Gross expenditures for maintenance and operation for the school year 1903-04, 
thirty of the cities which reported for 1902-03 reporting. The amounts are scored 
in dollars. 



8 £ • H S i« 



pq 

5. 124,160 90,100 2,700 640 8,400 920 3,500 1,200 200 200 10,000 800 

6. 44,648 26,957 2,100 2,970 50 1,000 2,000 150 3,500 175 
8. 63,749 44,554 2,100 3,675 750 3,000 600 100 100 3,500 

13. 114,634 70,099 15,455 500 6,518 1,000 2,663 3,434 7,548 

14. 41,793 26,935 2,000 3,306 101 1,043 1,319 47 3,565 

15. 116,108 70,129 18,020 675 7,390 200 2,490 3,928 168 98 6,783 229 

16. 26,918 18,381 2,000 1,819 200 442 897 1,899 

20. 59,423 43,106 1,800 3,256 400 2,000 1,181 123 5,011 61 

27. 40,637 22,59S 5,686 3,217 2518 902 74 

28. 47,036 31,195 1,800 570 3,328 300 1395 6,303* 

29. 50,616 32,349 1,547 250 4,263 146 4,037 _ 3,087 45 

30. 117,263 78,771 3,000 850 7,342 

31. 77,025 50,751 2,000 700 5,075 

32. 68,924 38,100 11,300 750 5,000 

34. 45,412 29,105 2,000 600 4,S57 

35. 123,116 89,360 6,775 5,870 

36. 38,904 26,070 6,500 300 1,424 

37. 53,161 31,107 9,283 1,121 2,790 

39. 46,859 29,000 5,950 480 2,580 

40. 54,556 27,563 9,850 1,200 1,980 

41. 90,956 51,597 12,830 1,637 4,123 

42. 92,550 50,050 14,600 4,784 

43. 71,995 51,961 2,200 491 4,527 
45. 91,573 61,140 5,800 1,200 5,255 
48. 23.806 13,454 3,425 250 1,290 

52. 106,235 63,885 " 5,950 2,300 8,400 

54. 70,496 36,716 8,450 600 3,736 

55. 32,000 21,525 2,000 200 1,900 

56. 49,888 33,525 2,200 400 4,150 

57. 120,163 77,915 11,500 2,150 6,725 

* Including repairs 



1,100 


1,978 
536 




3,263 




5,055 188 


800 








7,766 113 


400 


1,100 


800 


500 


348 


4,150 541 


780 


52 




663 


1,070 


1,639 


810 


100 


500 


407 


300 


7,808 149 


200 




250 


75 


20 


2,500 192 


250 




664 


100 




4,198 24 


400 




1,454 


626 


1,113 


3065 


450 


1,475 


2,080 


274 




3248 


68 


5,035 


280 


191 


6,684 282 


1,000 


4,690 


3,803 


606 


1,051 


4,400 221 


500 


1,500 


653 


585 


100 


2,210 239 


600 


3,573 


1,500 


500 


400 


3,709 900 


300 


854 


830 


30 


200 


1,215 25 


1,000 


4,200 


3,500 


500 


350 


4,000 1,000 




5,450 


7,275 


150 




4,086 




1,800 


150 


50 




1,500 400 


100 


900 


1,200 


500 


100 


2,195 203 




3,000 




4,375 




4,750 800 



TABLE II (Continued) 

Gross expenditures for maintenance and operation for the school year 1903-04, 
thirty of the cities which reported for 1902-03 reporting. The amounts are scored 
in dollars. 

















n 






G 




tn 


+3 

'6 

o 

14 

S 


t-c 

a! 


t/i 

u 

'3 
p. 

0) 

Ph 


43 

a 

<L> 


n 

tn 

a 


vx 




ct 
.2 

+ 3 tn 

u ft 

3 
ftp* 
a 

ci 
u 


T3 
9 fi m 

3 bog" 


bo 

c M tn 

s.S 

Sg ft u 

•S3; S 
&< g> 


1) 


ft 

1 


tn 

P . 
O tn 
v <u 

a 53 

Jg 

% ft 
x 


3"^ 

ft M 

+> s 

2-° 
a a 

u 

fa 


a 

ft 
ft 


£ >, bed >, 

11X1 ftS c 

*3 £|-a 


5- 




1,200 




400 


1,400 


125 


150 75 


50 1,300 


200 


500 


100 2,300 


6. 




4,000 




75 


750 


450 116 


75 50 


30 






200 


852 


8. 


180 


2,200 




100 


1,211 


500 50 


200 75 






205 


50 


600 400 


13- 


600 


2,733 


117 




360 


939 








168 2,500 


756 


14. 




1,972 


130 


39 


675 


193 173 


111 24 


18 


110 


30 






15- 




3,287 


800 


125 


893 


100 


354 36 


35 






267 


100 


16. 


300 


786 




50 


144 














612 


20. 




1,415 






158 




185 


345 


692 






628 


27. 


182 


1,500 


500 






526 




17 




1,494 


645 


330 131 


28. 




6,303 




198 








: 


L.228 




718 2,733 


29. 


176 


2,592 




125 


788 


184 


211 434 






400 




30. 




10,822 




75 






985 


355 




427 1,995 1,057 


31- 




7,025 




290 




543 


214 


99 




447 




667 1,277 


32. 




2,500 




240 




850 201 


251 


240 




600 


800 


250 


34- 




2,326 






250 


1,500 25 




96 




50 


200 


200 


35- 




6,069 








795 50 


300 100 240 




1,273 1,566 


744 800 


36. 


210 


50 


60 






168 60 


75 15 100 




410 


75 


150 


37- 




2,415 








504 


379 






100 




225 


39- 




1,871 








209 




60 










40. 


403 


2,051 








50 


1,318 


60 2,036 


518 






41. 


568 


3,252 


200 






182 139 


367 59 


26 




2,280 


572 


585 


42. 


604 


3,120 








751 99 


213 110 






1,068 


750 


630 


43- 


559 


2,095 


100 






730 50 


437 100 141 1,705 


552 


277 


384 


45- 




4,634 








350 200 


762 


100 


438 


388 


175 


350 


48. 


40 


920 




30 




100 


540 40 


60 






100 


103 


52. 




5,000 








2,500 650 


700 100 






1,000 1,000 


200 


54- 




2,000 






350 


443 50 


100 25 200 






614 


256 


55- 




400 










100 10 


75 


790 


600 




500 


56. 




1,800 








283 200 


152 50 119 


310 1,000 


200 


300 1,000 


57- 




5,000 


900 






250 500 


200 100 




500 


900 


400 


200 750 



23 



TABLE III 



The amounts spent for each item expressed as per cents of the total amount spent 
for maintenance and operation. Fifty-eight cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



Number of City. 
Teaching. 


a 

.0 

'w 

■> 

14 

ft 

3 


Ih 


10 

u 



'S 

rt 
>— > 


w 

Ih 

ft) 
O 

56 



c 
<s 

U 

H 





m 


"ft 

ft 


to 

"a 
ft 

to 

Ih 

O 

'S 

rt 
1—1 


c 
-ts u 

rt 
a w • 

rt C 

rt 


"3 
fa 


u 

% 



PL, 

13 

a 

as 

s 

3 


1-' 
0) 

rt 


10 
1- 

"3 

P. 
O 


I. 62.6 


2.9 


.5 


6.6 


.4 


5.1 


3.3 


.9 


.1 


4.6 


.5 




5.3 


2. 63.1 


3.3 


.3 




.6 


4.5 


1.1 


.5 




16.8 


.5 


.2 


5.4 


3. 68.2 


4.0 




7.1 




6 


.1 


1.0 




4.7 


4.6 




3.9 


4- 63.7 


10.7 


.4 


7.1 


.3 


3.4 


2.9 


.7 




4.8 


.2 


.4 


3.3 


5. 73.7 


2.2 


.5 


6.6 


.8 


6 


.0 


.2 


.3 


6.1 


.5 




1.0 


6. 72.9 


4.2 




5.3 




6 


.6 


.2 


.1 


4.1 


.3 




4.0 


7- 59.8 


7.9 


.5 


9.5 


.8 


2.5 


3.7 


.8 




3.7 






6.6 


8. 58.1 


13.6 




6.1 


1.2 


5.0 


1.5 


.2 


.3 


5.8 


.2 


.3 


3.8 


9. 66.9 


2.8 


1.1 


7.5 


.5 


6 


.7 






9.4 




.5 


.1 


io. 73.8 


1.7 


.7 


5.9 


.5 


2.3 


3.2 


.2 


.4 


4.3 


.3 


.5 


5.3 


II. 49.7 


11.6 

9.1 

17.4 


1.0 
.6 


9.1 
7.6 
6.9 


1.0 
.2 
.9 




1 


6.7 




6.1 
7.0 
6.6 


.6 
.2 


.5 


4.3 


12. 64.2 


3.5 

2.6 




3.7 




3.5 


13. 53.9 


2.8 


.2 




2.6 


14. 62.5 


5.0 




6.8 


.3 


3.1 


2.5 


.3 




8.2 


.5 




7.1 


15. 71.2 


2.2 


.5 


6.2 


.2 


4.0 


4.0 


.3 




6.7 


.2 




2.7 


16. 67.5 


7.8 




6.4 


1.4 


2.9 


3.3 






5.1 




1.2 


4.0 


17. 62.8 


7.8 


.6 


7.0 


.4 


2.9 


3.1 






7.3 


.8 




4.0 


18. 70.4 


4.5 
3.4 


.7 


6.8 
6.8 


.2 
.1 




7 


.6 




6.4 
7.2 




.4 


2.7 


19. 62.9 


4.7 


2.8 






5.7 


20. 71.5 


2.1 




5.2 


.7 


2.4 


1.2 


.2 




9.9 


.1 


.9 


3.7 


21. 69.1 


12.6 


.2 


5.9 


.2 




1.5 


.4 


.2 


3.8 


.2 


.2 


3.8 


22. 73.9 


1.2 




4.2 






5.9 


1.5 


.2 


4.1 


.4 




6.6 


23. 28.8 


29.4 


.7 


14.9 


.7 










9.9 




.6 


7.0 


24. 64.7 


9.2 


1.5 


6.3 




.7 


1.4 


.1 


.1 


6.7 


.5 


.9 


2.9 


25. 69.9 


7.9 




4.9 




.3 


.3 


.1 


.2 


6.6 


.1 


.8 


5.9 


26. 56.2 


16.7 


.6 


5.9 


.1 


2.0 


3.1 


.1 


.1 


4.4 


.2 


.5 


3.4 


27. 56.2 


10.4 


1.1 


7.9 




6.1 


1.8 






4.7 




.4 


2.3 


28. 65.2 


3.9 
2.9 


1.3 


7.2 
7.0 


.7 
.3 


3 

6 


8 
.8 


1.1 




7.5 
5.1 




4.6 




29. 61.6 


.1 


.3 





24 



TABLE III {Continued) 

The amounts spent for each item expressed as per cents of the total amount spent 
for maintenance and operation. Fifty-eight cities, for the school year 1902-03. 




























+3 . 














*M 












M 






2-72 








f* 






O 












rt 






el 






*d « 


o 

u 
u 


+3 


3 

IA 

c 

6 

"0 


.a 

to 


O 

2^ 
* & 
3 

a 
2 
H 




2 

2 

3 

a 




•a 

e 

aS 

Si 
fa 


(A 

8 

a 
K 


11 

M.J2 

fa< 


10 

O 
fa 

a» 

a) 

H 

60 

<D 

"3 
H 


10 

§ 


■a 

"3 
H 


3 . 
a 

13 m 

a 8 

u X 

•2W 
2 




3 
+-> 

1-1 

co 

ft 

ft 

< 


<u 2 


I. 




.1 


2.1 








.4 


.3 


.1 


.3 


1.6 


.4 


1 


.5 


.1 


2. 


.2 


.2 


3.0 














.1 




.5 




.3 




3- 
























.5 








4- 


.2 


.1 










.2 


.1 




.3 




.3 




.8 




5- 




.3 


1.1 


















.3 




.5 


.3 


6. 




.2 


1.5 








.2 


.2 


.1 










.7 




7- 




.1 


2.1 




9 




.1 


.5 


.1 






.3 








8. 




.2 


1.8 




6 




.1 


.3 


.1 


.1 




.4 




.3 


.2 


9- 




.1 
















.1 


4.6 










10. 




.1 


.5 










.2 
















ii. 


.5 




.9 




9 




.1 


.1 




.2 


6.8 


.2 








12. 


.2 


.1 


1.0 








.1 






.2 












13. 


.2 


.1 


.5 


1. 


6 




.2 


.2 


.1 




.8 


.5 






.1 


14. 


.1 


.1 


1.7 








.3 


.2 






.6 


.7 




.4 


.2 


15. 


.7 


.1 


.9 








.1 


.2 








.1 




.3 


.1 


16. 




.2 


.4 


























17. 




.1 


1.0 








.2 


.3 




.1 


.2 


.3 




.7 


.2 


18. 




.1 


.7 








.1 


.2 


.1 


.1 












19. 




.2 


2.8 








.2 


.2 








.6 


1 


.2 




20. 


.4 




.3 










.2 




.1 


.9 










21. 








.6 




.1 


.1 








.7 






.3 


22. 


.1 


.2 










.1 


.6 














.9 


23. 




.5 


.3 


3. 


2 














1.5 




.6 


2.1 


24. 




.2 




2. 


1 






.3 


.1 


.2 


1.3 








.8 


25. 




.3 






8 






.8 




.5 








.2 


.3 


26. 


.6 


.3 


.1 


1. 


4 




1 


.3 


.1 










.5 


3.2 


27. 


2.0 


.4 






1 






.3 






4.4 


.9 


1 


.7 


1.0 


28. 


.5 


.4 
















.2 


2.9 


.8 






1.2 


29. 


10.8 


.2 


1.2 








.5 


4 










1 


.2 


.6 



25 



TABLE III (Continued) 

The amounts spent for each item expressed as per cents of the total amount spent 
for maintenance and operation. Fifty-eight cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



H ** w ft o-p m 

£ 8 .2 3 sE.2 



o 



O 12 rr, rH *hlU 

~* ra TO \a 4,73 

W ft) 



30. 68.4 2.7 .7 6.3 .9 1.7 2.8 .7 4.9 .1 7.4 



31- 


56.5 


2.8 


1.0 


6.6 


1.1 


5 


.6 






12.5 


.3 




6.4 


32. 


55.3 


3.7 


.9 


5.6 


.5 


1.1 


1.9 


.4 


1.9 


6.5 


.7 




10.6 


33- 


67.5 


12.8 


1.4 


6.1 


.3 




.7 


.2 


.1 


4.9 


.1 




4.7 


34- 


64.5 


4.3 


1.2 


8.1 


1.6 


.1 


.9 


.6 


.4 


10.0 


.2 




1.5 


35- 


73.2 


2.0 


.7 


6.6 


.7 


.1 




.4 


.3 


5.7 


.2 




2.8 


36. 


59.0 


17.4 


.8 


3.5 


.3 




.6 


.2 


.1 


5.2 


.7 


.6 


2.3 


37- 


59.2 


16.9 


2.0 


5.3 


.5 




2 


.1 




6.0 






2.3 


38. 


64.5 


7.4 




3.8 


1.7 


.2 


.4 


.6 


.2 


5. 


5 




9.8 


39- 


62.3 


11.1 


1.0 


5.2 


.8 




1.8 


.8 




6, 


6 




4.2 


40. 


63.2 


4.0 


1.3 


3.9 


.8 


1.7 


4.1 


.3 




8.7 




.7 


3.5 


41. 


64.9 


4.2 


1.9 


4.6 


.1 


5 


.7 


.1 




6.1 


.5 


.9 


.2 


42. 


54.2 


15.5 


1.1 


5.2 


1.1 


5.0 


3.9 


.6 




5.6 




1.1 


2.8 


43- 


65.3 


3.5 


.6 


6.7 


.8 


1.9 


1.7 


.7 


.1 


8.9 


.4 


.6 


2.5 


44. 


63.8 


4.6 


.6 


6.1 


.9 


1.2 




.1 


1.5 


10.0 


.5 


.8 


4.3 


45- 


67.1 


2.3 


.2 


5.3 


.7 


5.4 


1.2 


.3 


.2 


3.8 


.9 




6.9 


46. 


61.3 


11.3 


.7 


4.6 


.5 


2.9 


1.7 


.9 


.5 


3.9 


.2 


.3 


2.6 


47- 


27.9 


16.3 


3.6 


8.4 


.9 


3.3 




2.8 




16.1 


.6 


.2 


13.2 


48. 


58.4 


9.8 


1.1 


6.0 


1.3 


4.3 


1.4 


.2 


.2 


6.2 


.2 


.5 


1.5 


49. 


63.9 


12.1 


.7 


4.0 


1.3 


5.2 


1.0 


.7 


.4 


5.5 




.2 


1.3 


50. 


62.9 


7.0 


1.7 


3.4 


.6 


4.5 


1.6 


.2 




6.3 


.3 




6.9 


5i- 


65.7 


13.9 


1.0 


5.5 


.7 


1.9 


.5 


.2 


.1 


5.6 


.1 




1.9 


52. 


52.3 


6.6 


.7 


7.0 


.6 


3.0 


3.5 


.6 


.4 




4.4 




15.0 


53- 


66.9 


11.8 


.7 


6.9 






4.9 




1.0 




2.8 




3.2 


54- 


56.0 


10.7 


1.3 


5.6 




3.8 


4.6 


.8 


.3 


5.0 


1.1 




4.2 


55- 


61.5 


3.4 


.6 


5.3 


1.1 


5.6 








5.6 


.6 




2.8 


56. 


54.6 


16.3 


.8 


8.4 


.3 


1.6 


1.8 


1.2 


1.7 


4.4 


.4 




5.3 


57« 


64.7 


9.9 


1.9 


4.7 




2.6 


4.4 


.2 


2.0 


3.9 


.4 




4.4 


58. 


63.1 


9.7 


.7 


5.4 


1.0 


6 


.5 


1.3 


.7 


3.2 


.3 


.5 


5.2 



26 



TABLE III (Continued) 

The amounts spent for each item expressed as per cents of the total amount spent 
for maintenance and operation. Fifty-eight cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



• S H CM SB 

i3^ § *>S m.2 



fcW £< 



09 






•d oi 


3 . 


O.bo 




c ^ 




s 


0] o 


c <2 


§3 


u 

0. 

o 


SPQ 








3« 




S fe' 


S 


E c 




P^J 



30. .8 .6 .3 .9 .2 1.1 



31- 


.4 


.4 




.3 




.5 




.1 


3.6 


1.3 




.6 


32. 




.4 




.5 


.2 


.8 




.3 


3.7 


2.5 


.6 


1.9 


33- 




.3 




.2 


.1 


.3 


.1 




.1 








34- 




.5 


.5 


1.5 




1.2 




.2 


.5 


1.7 


.7 




35- 




.2 




.4 


.1 


.7 


.1 


.2 


4.0 


.6 


.7 


.9 


36. 




.3 




1.0 


.2 


.1 


.1 


.3 


4.9 


1.3 


.6 


.8 


37- 








.2 




.6 






3.3 




1 


.7 


38. 




.2 




1.2 


.1 


.6 


.1 




1.3 


.2 


.8 


1.2 


39. 








.2 




1.8 




.1 








4.2 


40. 




.1 




1.5 


.1 


2.0 






1.3 


.5 




2.2 


41. 


1.8 


.2 


.1 


.7 


.2 


.3 


.2 


.2 


5.1 


.6 




1.5 


42. 








1.1 


.1 


.3 


.1 


.2 




1.1 


.6 


.4 


43- 


.2 


.4 


.3 


.1 


.1 


.5 


.1 


.1 


2.8 


.7 


.9 


.7 


44. 


2.3 






1.2 


.2 


.3 


.1 






.6 


.7 


.4 


45- 








1.1 


.1 


.9 




.1 


1.6 


.4 


.2 


.5 


46. 


3.6 




.3 




.2 


.5 


.1 


.5 


.1 


1.4 


.2 


.6 


47- 


.7 






1.8 




1.1 




.3 




2.0 


.2 


.6 


48. 


2.5 


.3 




.5 


.2 


1.6 


.1 




3.2 


.4 


.2 


.3 


49. 




.2 




.6 


.2 


.1 


.1 




.3 


.9 


.9 


.5 


50. 


1.2 


.4 


.2 


.1 


.6 


.2 








2.1 






Si. 




.1 




.9 


.1 


.2 


.1 


.1 




.1 


.8 


.8 


52. 








1.2 


.7 


.8 






1.8 




1.0 


.2 


53. 




















1.4 






54- 






.5 


.8 


.4 


.5 


.1 


.4 


1.2 


.5 


2.2 


.4 


55- 


















9.8 


1.4 


1.4 


1.1 


56. 












.3 




.2 


.9 


.6 


.2 


.4 


57- 








.2 


.2 


.3 


.1 






.8 


.3 


.4 


58. 












.1 




.3 






.1 


1.9 



27 



TABLE IV 

The amounts spent for each item expressed as per cents of the total amount spent 
for maintenance and operation. Thirty cities, for the school year 1903-04. 



>. 










tn 






to 

.52 


a 

0. 
'2 £2 




1-.' 

CD 




o 

o 


2 


.2 

'> 

u 


u 


u 




u 




in 

O 
O 
PQ 


GO 

"ft 


"p. 
a 

3 


C3 
xn . 

w £"3. 


*3 

3 


1 

•a 
c 


CO 

at 


.a 

S 
3 


(8 
O 


a 

3 


5 


'a 

C() 

1—1 


•** 

a 
<a 
3 
u 




P. 

3 


O 

'3 

a) 
1-1 


tu 5 Pi 

™ 


fe 


-a 
3 


£ 


5. 


72.7 


2.2 


.5 


6.8 


.7 


2.8 


1.0 


.2 


.2 


8.1 


.6 




6. 


60.5 


4.7 




6.7 




2.2 


4.5 


.3 




7.8 


.4 




8. 


70.0 


3.3 




5.8 


1.2 


4.7 


.9 


.1 


.2 


5.5 




.3 


13. 


60.9 


13.4 


.4 


5.7 


.9 


2.3 


3.0 






6.6 




.5 


14. 


64.4 


4.8 




7.9 


.2 


2.5 


3.2 


.1 




8.5 




15. 


60.5 


15.6 


.6 


6.4 


.2 


2.1 


3.4 


.1 


.1 


5.8 


.2 




16. 


68.3 


7.4 




6.8 


.7 


1.6 


3.3 






7.1 




1.1 


20. 


73.0 


3.0 




5.5 


.7 


3.4 


2.0 


.2 




7.4 


.1 




27. 


55.6 


14.0 


1.1 


7.9 




6 


.2 






2.2 


.2 


.4 


28. 


66.4 


3.8 


1.2 


7.1 


.6 


3. 











13.4 




29. 


63.9 
67.3 
65.9 


3.1 
2.6 
2.6 


.5 

.7 
.9 


8.4 
6.3 
6.6 


.3 

.9 
1.0 




8.0 






6.1 

4.3 

10.1 


.1 
.2 
.1 


.3 


30. 


1.7 

.7 




2.8 




31. 










3 2 - 


55.3 


6.4 


1.1 


7.3 


.6 


1.6 


1.2 


.7 


.5 


6.0 


.8 




34- 


64.0 


4.4 


1.3 


10.7 


1.7 


.1 




1.5 


2.4 


3.6 






35- 


72.6 


5.5 




4.8 


.6 


.1 


.4 


.3 


.2 


6.3 


.1 




36. 


68.2 


17.1 


.8 


3.7 


.5 




.6 


.2 


.1 


6.5 


.5 


.5 


37- 


58.8 


17.6 


2.1 


5.3 


.5 




1.3 


.2 




7.9 


.1 




39^ 


62.0 


12.7 


1.0 


5.5 


.8 




3.1 


1.3 


2.4 


6 


.5 




40. 


50.9 


18.2 


2.2 


3.7 


.8 


2.7 




.5 


3.8 


6 


.0 


.7 


41. 


56.8 


14.1 


1.8 


4.5 


.1 


5 


.5 


.3 


.2 


7.3 


.3 


.6 


42. 


54.1 


16.0 




5.2 


1.1 


5.1 


4.1 


.6 


1.1 


4.8 


.2 


.6 


43- 


72.2 


3.1 


.7 


6.3 


.7 


2.1 


.9 


.8 


.1 


3.1 


.3 


.8 


45- 


66.8 


6.3 


1.3 


5.7 


.7 


3.9 


1.6 


.5 


.4 


4.0 


1.0 




48. 


56.5 


14.4 


1.0 


5.4 


1.3 


3.6 


3.5 


.1 


.8 


5.1 


.1 


.2 


52. 


60.2 


5.6 


2.2 


7.9 


.9 


4.9 


3.3 


.5 


.3 


3.8 


.9 




54- 


52.1 


12.0 


.8 


5.3 




7.7 


10.3 


.2 




5 


.8 




55- 


67.3 


6.2 


.6 


5.9 




5.6 


.5 


.2 




4.7 


1.2 




56. 


67.2 


4.4 


.8 


8.3 


.2 


1.8 


2.4 


1.0 


.2 


4.4 


.4 




57- 


64.9 


9.6 


1.8 


5.6 




2.5 




3.6 




4.0 


7 





28 



TABLE IV (Continued) 

The amounts spent for each item expressed as per cents of the total amount spent 
for maintenance and operation. Thirty cities, for the school year 1903-04. 



So o <U O "» 

ra.!3 J? £ am) 



5. 1.0 .3 1.1 1.0 1.2 .1 1.0 

6. 9.0 .2 1.7 1.0 .3 .2 .1 .1 
8. 3.4 .2 1.9 .8 .1 .3 .1 

13. 2.4 .1 .3 .8 

14. 4.7 .3 .1 1.6 .5 .4 .2 .1 .1 .3 

15. 2.8 .7 .1 .8 .1 .3 

16. 2.9 .2 .5 .3 
20. 2.4 .3 

27. 4.9 

28. .4 

29. 5.1 .2 1.6 

30. 9.3 .1 

31. 9.1 .4 

32. 3.6 .3 

34- 5.1 .5 

35- 4.9 
36. .1 .2 
37- 4.6 
39- 4.0 

40. 3.8 

41. 3.6 .2 

42. 3.4 
43- 2.9 .1 
45- 5.1 
48. 3.9 .1 

52. 4.7 

54- 2.8 .5 

55- 1.3 
56. 3.6 

57- 4.2 .7 







*d oi 


P. bo 


3 


oi O 


«2 


c3 




JJ.Q 


Pi 




H£ 


< 


0),Q 


? a 




1*3 


3 






In 






.2 


.4 

.4 


.1 


.3 


.1 


.9 


.1 


2.2 













.1 


1.2 








1.3 


.4 


.4 






2.6 
.9 


3.7 


1.6 
1. 

.8 


.8 
5 










.3 


.8 


.4 


1.7 


.9 


.7 




.3 




.1 




.6 




.9 


1.2 


.3 


.4 




.3 




.9 


1.2 


.4 


3.3 


.1 






.2 




.1 


.4 


.4 


.6 




.2 


.1 


.2 




1.0 


1.3 


.6 


.4 


.2 


.2 




.3 




1.1 


.2 


.4 


.9 




.7 








.2 




.4 


.4 








.1 










.1 




2.4 




.1 


3.8 


1.0 






.2 


.1 


.4 


.1 






2.5 


.6 


.6 


.8 


.1 


.2 


.1 






1.1 


.8 


.7 


1.0 


.1 


.6 


.1 


.2 


2.4 


.8 


.4 


.5 


.4 


.2 


.4 




.1 


.5 


.4 


.2 


.4 


.4 




2.3 


.2 


.3 






.4 


.4 


2.4 


.6 


.7 


.1 


.1 




.9 


.9 


.2 


.6 


.1 


.1 




.3 






.9 


.4 






.3 




.2 


2.5 


1.9 




1.6 


.6 


.4 


.3 


.1 


.2 


.6 


2.0 


.4 


.6 


.2 


.4 


.2 


.1 




.4 


.7 


.3 


.2 



29 



TABLE V 

The average of the amounts spent for each item for two years expressed as per 
cents of the average total expenditure for two years. Thirty cities, for the school 
years 1902-03 and 1903-04. 



o 

o 
u 

B 


•0 . 
c c 
nl_o 

sis 

S > 

Xi CD 


.2 

'> 
u 

<D 
ft 

3 
CO 


°C 
a! 

"eg 

co 

u 
O 

'S 

1—1 




•a 
c 

nl . 
to w 

g'-ft 

pqg. 


i 


w 
u 

■3 

ft 


5- 


75.4 


2.2 


6.7 


73.2 


5.2 


7.1 


.9 


6. 


71.0 


4.4 


6.0 


66.7 


6.6 


6.0 


6.5 


8. 


72.5 


8.4 


6.0 


64.0 


6.0 


5.7 


3.6 


13- 


72.8 


15.4 


6.3 


59.4 


5.3 


6.6 


2.5 


14. 


68.4 


4.9 


7.4 


63.4 


5.6 


8.1 


5.9 


15. 


74.7 


8.9 


6.3 


65.8 


6.7 


6.2 


2.8 


16. 


75.5 


7.6 


6.6 


67.9 


5.6 


6.1 


3.5 


20. 


74.6 


2.6 


5.3 


72.2 


4.4 


8.6 


3.0 


27. 


68.1 


12.6 


7.6 


55.9 


7.0 


3.5 


3.6 


28. 


69.7 


3.9 


7.1 


65.8 


3.4 






29. 


65.7 


3.0 


7.7 


62.8 


6.9 


5.6 


2.1 


30. 


70.5 


2.6 


6.3 


67.8 




4.6 


8.3 


3i. 


64.0 


2.7 


6.6 


61.2 




11.2 


7.8 


32. 


65.4 


10.1 


6.4 


55.3 


2.8 


6.3 


7.1 


34- 


68.6 


4.4 


9.4 


64.2 




6.8 


3.3 


35- 


76.7 


3.8 


5.7 


72.9 


.3 


5.9 


3.8 


36. 


80.8 


17.2 


3.6 


62.6 


.7 


5.8 


1.2 


37- 


76.2 


17.2 


5.2 


59.2 




6.9 


3.4 


39- 


73.9 


11.9 


5.4 


62.1 




6.5 


4.1 


40. 


68.1 


11.1 


3.8 


57.0 


6.1 


7.3 


3.6 


41. 


70.0 


9.1 


4.5 


60.9 


5.6 


6.7 


1.8 


42. 


69.8 


15.7 


5.2 


54.1 


9.1 


5.1 


3.1 


43- 


72.0 


3.3 


6.4 


68.7 


3.3 


5.9 


2.7 


45. 


71.2 


4.3 


5.5 


66.9 


6.1 


3.9 


5.9 


48. 


68.5 


12.1 


5.7 


57.4 


6.3 


5.6 


2.7 


52. 


62.4 


6.1 


6.4 


56.2 


7.3 


3.6 


9.8 


54- 


65.4 


11.3 


5.4 


54.0 


13.2 


4.8 


3.5 


55- 


69.2 


4.8 


5.6 


64.4 


5.8 


5.1 


2.0 


56. 


71.2 


10.3 


8.3 


60.9 


3.8 


4.4 


4.4 


57- 


74.5 


9.7 


5.1 


64.8 




3.9 


4.2 



30 



TABLE VI 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The number used as a divisor 
is the figure half-way between the average daily attendance and the average daily 
enrollment. Forty-eight cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



umber of City. 
Total. 


si 
a 

CIS 
0) 


a 

.2 

'> 

u 
CD 
a 
3 
to 


u 

CD 




S3 



'5 

1— > 


CD 
O 

ifi 
O 

a 
2 






<D 

"a 
a 
3 
to 


10 

.2 

Oh 

CQ 

"m 
v. 
O 

'S 


c 

■£» u 
cc 

•a >.2 


"Vd 


CD 
O 

g 
1 


u 

CD 

is 


£ 










H 






3 


ct) 5 
O rt 




3 




i. 34.18 


21.38 


.99 


.17 


2.26 


.14 


1.75 


1.13 


.30 


.03 


1.56 


.16 




2. 26.48 


16.69 


.88 


.07 




.15 


1.17 


.29 


.13 




4.39 


.12 


.06 


3. 27.09 


18.47 


1.08 




1.91 




1.66 


.27 




1.27 






4. 30.91 


19.73 


3.33 


.11 


2.21 


.08 


1.05 


.89 


.22 




1.48 


.07 


.12 


5. 32.30 


23.70 


.72 


.17 


2.13 


.25 


1.94 


.05 


.08 


1.97 


16 




6. 26.80 


19.50 


1.12 




1.41 




1.75 


.05 


.03 


1.10 


.07 




7. 21.19 


12.65 


1.68 


.10 


2.01 


.18 


53 


.79 


.18 




.78 






8. 29.80 


17.29 


4.04 




1.81 


.37 


1.48 


.44 


.05 


.10 


1.74 


.05 


.10 


9. 29.29 


19.50 


.82 


.32 


2.19 


.15 




1.96 






2.75 




.16 


io. 41.21 


3040 


.70 


.28 


2.44 


.19 


.95 


1.34 


.10 


.17 


1.75 


.08 


.22 


n. 27.90 


13.90 
18.12 


3.23 

2.58 


.31 


2.56 
2.14 


.31 

.07 




1.88 




1.70 
1.99 


.17 




12. 28.28 


.82 




1.06 






13. 28.53 


15.33 


4.96 


.18 


1.96 


.27 


.74 


.81 


.07 




1.88 


.05 


1.6 


14. 27.35 


17.02 


1.37 




1.86 


.07 


.85 


.68 


.07 




2.24 


.14 




15. 24.33 


17.20 


.52 


.12 


1.47 


.04 


.9r 


.97 


.06 




1.64 


.07 




16. 27.67 


18.65 


2.16 




1.77 


.38 


.80 


.92 






1.40 






17. 34.88 


21.90 


2.73 


.21 


2.45 


.14 


1.02 


1.07 




.01 


2.56 


.28 




18. 34.59 


24.39 


1.55 




2.35 


.08 




2.62 




2.23 






19. 27.78 


17.50 


.95 


.18 


1.90 


.04 


1.32 


.79 






2.00 




.11 


20. 22.53 


16.13 


.48 




1.16 


.15 


.54 


.35 


.04 




2.23 


.03 


.20 


28. 28.44 


18.55 


1.11 


.36 


2.05 


.18 


; 


1.07 






2.14 




1.29 


29. 27.91 


17.20 


.81 




1.95 


.09 




1.91 


.32 




1.43 


.01 


.08 



3i 



TABLE VI {Continued) 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The number used as a divisor 
is the figure half-way between the average daily attendance and the average daily 
enrollment. Forty-eight cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



<3 

u 

a 

3 


03 

U 

'3 
P. 

Pi 


a 
Pi 


3 

a 

6 

*o 


CO 


a 
_o 

O 3 

a 

d 
u 

H 


u 

a 

ni 
1-1 

3 


*T3 (jj 

C bo 
ho u 

'£* 


"Sub 

s.s 

60-2 

.at 


id 

bo 

C3 

en 

O 

fc . 

. 

J3 +* 

cS 

lH 

60 
a> 


CO 

a) 

s 



P. 


CO 

3 . 
O en 

tu O 

Is 


+> • 
3^ 

P. (JO 

*> S 

^3 


3 
<a 

CS 

a 
< 


•O 0) 

O 

*3 


i. 


1.80 


.01 


.24 


.70 




.15 


.10 


.02 


.10 


.56 


.14 


.45 


.02 


2. 


1.42 


.04 


.04 


.90 










.01 




.13 


.07 




3- 


1.05 


















1.23 


.14 






4- 


1.03 


.05 


.02 






.05 


.03 


.01 


.09 




.10 


.26 




5- 


.32 




.10 


.34 










.01 




.10 


.16 


.08 


6. 


1.06 






.40 


.05 


.04 


.01 


.01 








.19 




7- 


1.40 




.02 


.44 


.18 


.03 


.09 


.01 






.06 






8. 


1.12 




.05 


.54 


.18 


.04 


.07 


.02 


.03 




.12 


.07 


.05 


9- 


.04 




.04 












.02 


1.34 








10. 


2.18 




.05 


.18 






.10 




.01 










31. 


1.19 


.14 




.26 


.26 


.03 


.04 




.05 


1.89 


.07 






32. 


9.9 


.06 


.04 


.27 




.04 






.06 










13. 


.74 


.04 


.03 


.14 


.46 


.05 


.05 


.01 




.36 


.13 


.06 


.01 


34. 


1.93 


.03 


.02 


.44 




.09 


.05 






.16 


.20 


.10 


.05 


IS- 


.67 


.17 


.03 


.21 




.03 


.05 


.01 


.01 




.02 


.07 


.01 


36. 


1.11 




.05 


.10 




















17. 


1.39 




.03 


.35 




.07 


.12 


.01 


.03 


.08 


.12 


.24 


.07 


38. 


.95 


.05 




.24 




.04 


.08 


.02 


.02 










39. 


1.58 




.06 


.79 




.05 


.05 


.01 


.01 




.16 


.34 




20. 


.83 


.08 




.07 






.05 




.01 


.21 








28. 




.13 
2.98 


.12 

.06 


.34 


.13 


.10 






.05 


.83 


.22 


.3; 
.33 


3 


29. 




.17 



32 



TABLE VI {Continued) 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The number used as a divisor 
is the figure half-way between the average daily attendance and the average daily 
enrollment. Forty-eight cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



Number of City. 
Total. 


si 
a 


ca 


c 

u 

CD 

0, 

3 


u 

CD 




03 

u 


■3 


03 

u 



C 

C3 

s 


03 

A) 
O 
O 

m 

D 

H 


03 

.2 
"3. 
a 


03 

CD 

'S 
P. 

3 
"m 

O 

'S 
aj 


a 
.2-0. 

•^ u 
a 
w . 
3"C m 

wSft 
°en 3 

cij a 

O (8 


"3 
3 
ft 


u 

V 

ts 


Oh 

a 
+^ 

■s 

3 


1*' 

V 


30. 35.41 


23.92 


.96 


.26 


2.24 


.32 


.61 


.98 


.24 




1.75 


.07 




31. 26.82 


15.20 


.76 


.27 


1.77 


.30 


1.50 






3.36 


.09 




32. 33.50 


18.52 


1.25 


.29 


1.88 


.17 


.36 


.63 


.13 


.63 


2.19 


.25 




33- 24.13 


16.31 


3.08 


.34 


1.48 


.09 




.17 


.04 


.03 


1.20 


.04 




34- 35.20 


22.65 


1.52 


.42 


2.82 


.55 


.02 


.32 


.21 


.14 


3.54 


.08 




35- 24.08 


17.55 


.48 


.17 


1.57 


.17 


.02 




.09 


.06 


1.36 


.06 




37- 18.55 


10.96 


3.13 


.37 


.98 


.09 




.38 






1.11 






38. 22.68 


14.65 


1.69 




.87 


.37 


.05 


.09 


.15 


.05 




L.25 




39- 30.87 


19.24 


3.42 


.30 


1.61 


.24 




.54 


.24 






2.03 




40. 33.61 


21.08 


1.36 


.43 


1.33 


.28 


.58 


1.40 


.11 






2.95 


.24 


41. 23.77 


15.41 


1.00 


.44 


1.09 


.02 


1.35 


.03 


.01 


1.44 


.11 


.21 


42. 28.23 


15.31 


4.39 


.32 


1.48 


.32 


1.42 


1.11 


.16 






1.58 


.32 


43- 25.14 


16.39 


.89 


.16 


1.67 


.20 


.47 


.43 


.17 


.03 


2.23 


.09 


.15 


44. 25.50 


16.22 


1.16 


.16 


1.54 


.22 


.30 




.03 


.39 


2.55 


.12 


.21 


45- 27.14 


18.20 


.61 


.05 


1.45 


.18 


1.48 


.33 


.08 


.05 


1.03 


.25 




46. 39.40 


24.23 


4.47 


.29 


1.81 


.20 


1.13 


.68 


.37 


.18 


1.55 


.05 


.13 


47. 18.33 


5.11 

12.28 


2.98 
2.06 


.66 
.23 


1.55 
1.26 


.16 

.28 


.61 
.90 




.51 




2.95 
1.29 


.11 

.05 


.04 


48. 21.09 


.29 


.05 


.04 


.11 


49. 20.93 


13.40 


2.54 


.14 


.85 


.28 


1.09 


.21 


.14 


.07 


1.15 




.04 


51. 29.83 


19.60 


4.14 


.30 


1.63 


.20 


.56 


.14 


.07 


.02 


1.67 


.03 




53- 29.61 


19.82 
35.07 


3.62 
5.64 


.21 
.67 


2.04 
2.92 






1.44 




.29 

.17 


2.61 


.83 
.56 




54- 52.75 


2.02 


2.40 


.42 




55- 19.61 


12.08 


.66 


.11 


1.04 


.22 


1.09 






1.09 


.11 




56. 27.12 


14.82 


4.42 


.22 


2.28 


.08 


.43 


50 


.32 


.46 


1.18 


.11 




57. 51.49 


33.36 


5.11 


.96 


2.43 




1.35 


2.24 


.11 


.11 


2.02 


.22 




58. 20.38 


12.83 


1.97 


.13 


1.11 




1.32 


.26 


.13 


.66 


.05 


.09 



33 



TABLE VI (Continued) 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The number used as a divisor 
is the figure half-way between the average daily attendance and the average daily 
enrollment. Forty-eight cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



30. 2.61 

31. 1.72 

32. 3.56 



33- 
34. 
35- 
37- 
38. 

39- 
40. 
41. 
42. 
43- 

44- 
45. 
46. 

47- 
48. 

49. 
5i. 
53- 
54- 
55- 

56. 
57- 
58. 



1.13 
.51 
.67 
.43 

2.23 



31 
17 
01 
79 
62 



1.09 
1.88 
1.02 
2.42 
.31 

.28 
.56 
.96 
2.21 
.55 

1.45 
2.24 
1.06 



.17 



.43 

.04 

.59 

1.42 
.12 
.51 



.02 
.10 
.13 

.07 

.19 

04 

.05 



.04 
.05 

.10 



.06 

.05 
.02 



.18 



.02 

.07 

.10 



.24 



.22 



6 
u 

c 

u 

3 

a 


g M 
«5 a) 

-^ </' 
C X 


If 

CO 
3h< 


O 

Ph . 
. O 

"ft" 

u 
M 


tu 

c 


0. 
H 


fl . 

O to 

O O 

G w 
ci G 

.-. <p 
*0J P. 
X 


»8j 
fc.S 


05 

3 

u 
ol 

a 
a 
< 


rt O 
O 

g u 






.21 




.11 


.30 


.33 


.06 


.40 


.07 


.14 


.14 




.04 


.97 


.34 


1.7 


.18 


.27 


.27 




.10 


1.26 


.83 


21 


.63 


06 


.06 


.06 


.02 




.02 








51 


.43 


.43 




.07 


.17 


.60 


.23 




09 


.16 


16 


.02 


.06 


.97 


.14 


.16 


.21 


04 


.11 


11 






.61 




.32 


26 


.02 


14 


.02 




.30 


.05 


.18 


.28 


06 




56 




.04 


.43 


.17 


■ 


L.31 


49 


.03 


68 




'3 


17 


.05 


.06 


.04 


.05 


1.22 


.14 


.35 


32 


.02 


08 


.02 


.05 




.32 


.16 


.10* 


01 


.01 


.12 


.02 


.01 


.70 


.17 


.21 


.16 


31 


.05 


.07 


.01 






.15 


.18 


.10 


30 


.03 


.24 




.03 


.65 


.12 


.05 


.13 




.07 


.21 


.04 


.18 


.04 


.55 


.22 


.24 


33 




.21 




.06 




.37 


.03 


.11 


10 


.03 


.33 


.01 




.68 


.08 


.05 


.06 


12 


.04 


.02 


.01 




.06 


.19 


.19 


.10 


27 


.02 


.06 


.01 


.04 




.03 
.41 


.23 


.23 


42 


.19 


.24 


.03 


.19 


.64 
1.92 


.24 
.27 


1.17 

.27 


.19 

.22 


15 




.08 




.06 


.24 


.16 


.05 


.10 


11 


.11 


.14 


.07 






.45 


.22 


.22 


03 




.03 




.05 






.03 


.40 



34 



TABLE VII 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The average number of pupils 
in daily attendance is used as the divisor. Fifty-seven cities, for the school year 
1902-03. 



o 

u 
.0 

S 

3 


"a 




c 


a 

.2 

1 

p. 

3 




u 


"S 

a! 


Ii 

<U 

SB 
O 

c 

d 

3 
u 




m 


p. 


"3. 

a 

a 

tZ) 

*cfl 

u 


'3 


c 

T3 > i. 


"a; 

3 


u 



a. 
-a 
a 
a 

■s 


u 

<u 

-4-> 

a) 


z 












H 






en 
1—1 


5 
pqcs 




3 




I. 


35.64 


22.30 


1.03 


.18 


2.35 


.14 


1.83 


1.18 


.31 


.04 


1.63 


17 




2. 


28.00 


17.60 


.93 


.07 




.16 


1.24 


.31 


.14 




4.70 


.13 


.07 


3- 


28.06 


19.10 


1.12 




1.98 




1.72 


.28 




1.32 






4- 


31.90 


20.35 


3.44 


.11 


2.27 


.08 


1.08 


.92 


.22 




1.53 


.07 


.12 


5- 


33.27 


24.41 


.74 


.18 


2.19 


.26 


1.99 


.06 


.08 


2.03 


.16 




6. 


27.65 


20.10 


1.15 




1.45 




1.81 


.05 


.03 


1.14 


.07 




7- 


21.61 


12.91 


1.71 


.11 


2.05 


.18 


.54 


.81 


.18 




.80 






8. 


31.16 


18.10 


4.23 




1.89 


.39 


1.55 


.46 


.05 


.10 


1.82 


.05 


.10 


9- 


31.01 
43.23 


20.63 
31.91 


.86 
.73 


.33 

.29 


2.32 
2.56 


.15 

.20 




2.08 




.18 


2.91 
1.84 


.11 


.17 


10. 


.99 


1.39 


.12 


.23 


ii. 


29.01 
29.20 
29.56 


14.42 
18.75 
15.90 


3.35 
2.66 
5.14 


.32 

.19 


2.65 
2.21 
2.03 


.32 

.07 
.28 




1.94 




1.77 
2.Q5 
1.95 


.18 
.05 




12. 


.85 

.77 




1.09 






13- 


.83 


.07 




.16 


14. 


28.75 


17.89 


1.44 




1.95 


.07 


.89 


.71 


.08 




2.50 




IS- 


25.35 


17.91 


.55 


.12 


1.53 


.04 


1.01 


1.01 


.07 




1.71 


.07 




16. 


28.41 


19.17 


2.22 




1.82 


.39 


.82 


.94 






1.44 




.33 


17- 


36.00 


22.60 


2.82 


.22 


2.53 


.14 


1.05 


1.11 




.01 


2.64 


.29 




18. 


35.70 
28.90 


25.17 
18.16 


1.60 
.98 


.19 


2.43 
1.97 


.08 
.04 




2.71 




2.30 
2.08 






19. 


1.37 


.82 






.11 


20. 


23.16 


16.58 


.49 




1.19 


.15 


.55 


.36 


.04 




2.29 


.03 


.21 


21. 


24.50 


16.90 


3.08 


.05 


1.44 


.05 




.38 


.09 


.05 


.94 


.05 


.04 


22. 


8.94 


6.63 


.11 




.37 






.53 


.13 


.02 


.37 


.03 




23. 


12.85 


3.69 


3.78 


.08 


1.92 


.08 










1.27 




.08 


24. 


15.26 


9.87 


1.41 


.23 


.96 




.10 


.22 


.01 


.01 


1.03 


.07 


.14 


25. 


31.00 


21.67 


2.45 




1.53 




.11 


.11 


.03 


.05 


2.04 


.04 


.25 


26. 


32.67 


18.37 


5.47 


.19 


1.92 


.03 


.66 


.99 


.04 


.03 


1.45 


.05 


.18 


27. 


26.96 
30.30 


15.11 
19.77 


2.82 
1.19 


.39 


1.95 
2.19 


.20 


1.64 
1. 




.48 




1.25 

2.28 


- 


.12 


28. 


14 






1.38 


29. 


29.50 


18.21 


.86 




2.06 


.09 


2.01 


.33 




1.51 


.01 


.08 



35 



TABLE VII {Continued) 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The average number of pupils 
in daily attendance is used as the divisor. Fifty-seven cities for the school year 
1902-03. 











•M 








CO 

be 






3o 






>• 

o 






tO 

3 
10 




.2 


0) 


"2» 

C bo 


"2> 

c8 c 


O 


to 


CO 

3 . 
O to 


+= c 


to 

3 


•O to* 

oS O 


u 

u 

| 

3 

$5 


u 

■3 

0. 
CD 


a 
Pi 


a 

6 

"s 


.s 


CO 


u ft 
O 3 
ftn. 
co" 

C 

<a 
u 

H 


1 

3 

to 

C 


rt cf 

Mb 

■s& 

faW 


bO-S 
.5 t> 


as 
u 
bo 

<o 

H 


c 

.C 
ft 

CD 


*S ft 


52 
Eg 

3 C 


1* 

al 
ft 
ft 
< 


8m 
«3 


I. 


1.88 


.01 


.25 


.73 




.16 


.11 


.02 


.10 


.16 


.56 


.47 


.02 


2. 


1.50 


.05 


.05 


.83 










.01 




.14 


.07 




3- 


1.09 


















1.28 


.15 






4- 


1.06 


.05 


.02 






.05 


.04 


.01 


.09 




.11 


.27 




5- 


.33 




.11 


.34 










.01 




.11 


.16 


.08 


6. 


1.09 






.41 




.05 


.04 


.01 


.01 






.19 




7- 


1.43 




.02 


.45 


.19 


.03 


.11 


.01 






.06 






8. 


1.17 




.05 


.56 


.19 


.04 


.08 


.03 


.03 




.13 


.08 


.05 


9- 


.05 




.05 












.03 


1.42 








10. 


2.29 




.05 


.19 






.10 




.01 










ii. 


1.24 


.14 




.26 


.26 


.04 


.04 


.01 


.05 


1.96 


.07 






12. 


1.03 


.07 


.04 


.28 




.04 






.06 










13- 


.77 


.04 


.03 


.14 


.48 


.05 


.05 


.01 




.37 


.14 


.06 


.01 


14. 


2.02 


.03 


.03 


.46 




.10 


.05 






.17 


.21 


.10 


.05 


IS- 


.69 


.17 


.03 


.22 




.03 


.06 


.01 


.01 




.02 


.07 


.01 


16. 


1.14 




.05 


.10 




















17. 


1.43 




.03 


.36 




.07 


.12 


.01 


.02 


.08 


.12 


.25 


.07 


18. 


.98 




.05 


.25 




.04 


.08 


.02 


.02 










19. 


1.64 




.07 


.82 




.05 


.05 


.01 


.01 




.16 


.35 




20. 


.85 


.09 




.07 






.05 




.01 


.22 








21. 


.94 








.14 


.02 


.01 


.01 


.01 




.19 




.07 


22. 


.59 


.01 


.02 






.01 


.06 










.08 


23. 


.90 




.06 


.03 


.40 








.01 




.19 


.08 


.26 


24. 


.45 




.03 




.32 




.05 


.01 


.02 


.19 




.: 


L3 


25- 


1.83 




.08 




.25 


.01 


.25 


.01 


.14 






.05 


.11 


26. 


1.12 


.19 


.10 


.03 


.44 


.03 


.10 


.02 


.01 






.17 


1.05 


27. 


.63 


.54 


.10 




.03 




.08 






1.18 


.24 


.44 


.27 


28. 




.14 


.13 












.05 


.89 


.23 


.35 


29. 




3.15 


.07 


.36 




.14 


.11 










.35 


.18 



36 



TABLE VII (Continued) 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The average number of pupils 
in daily attendance is used as the divisor. Fifty-seven cities, for the school year 
1902-03. 



f City. 
1. 


m 

S3 


i 




10 

Ih 


u 




SE 


to 
M 
O 


.2 


ra 

V 

"a 
a 
3 


c 

2~ 
■5 ™ 

GJ O 

in . 
3-r: a 
•5 r* 1 1 




u 

I 

fa 


u 


Number o 
Tota 


3 

a 


u 

ft 


^4 

u 
0) 

O 


O 

'S 
a 
1—1 




i 

u 
H 



« 
*> 


0. 

3 

CO 


to 

"to 

u 


'3 
a 
i— > 


H Sft 
>*J Sft 

gS C 
O rt 

m 


1 
fa 


•a 

1 
3 


V 

is 


30. 37.32 


25.25 


1.01 


.27 


2.36 


.34 


.64 


1.04 


.26 




1.85 


.07 




31. 27.90 


15.75 


.79 


.28 


1.84 


.32 




1.56 






3.49 


.09 




32. 34.49 


19.07 


1.29 


.30 


1.93 


.17 


.37 


.64 


.13 


.64 


2.25 


.25 




33- 24.85 


16.78 


3.18 


.35 


1.52 


.09 




.17 


.04 


.03 


1.24 


.04 




34- 35.96 


23.15 


1.56 


.44 


2.92 


.56 


.02 


.33 


.22 


.09 


3.61 


.08 




35- 24.52 


17.87 


.49 


.17 


1.60 


.18 


.02 




.10 


.06 


1.39 


.07 




36. 31.94 


18.88 


5.54 


.25 


1.11 


.10 




.21 


.07 


.02 


1.66 


.22 


.18 


37. 19.26 


11.40 
15.21 


3.25 
1.75 


.39 


1.01 
.91 


.09 
.40 




.40 




.05 


1.15 
1.30 






38. 23.56 


.05 


.10 


.15 




39. 32.01 


19.94 


3.55 


.31 


1.67 


.25 




.56 


.25 




1 


2.11 




40. 34.79 


21.90 


1.42 


.44 


1.38 


.29 


60 


1.45 


.11 




3.06 


.25 


41. 24.65 


15.99 


1.03 


.46 


1.13 


.02 




1.40 


.04 


.01 


1.49 


.12 


.22 


42. 28.50 


15.47 


4.43 


.32 


1.49 


.32 


1.43 


1.12 


.16 




■ 


L.59 


.32 


43. 26.09 


17.00 


.92 


.17 


1.73 


.21 


.49 


.45 


.18 


.03 


2.31 


.10 


.15 


44- 26.18 


16.69 


1.19 


.16 


1.58 


.23 


.31 




.03 


.40 


2.62 


.13 


.21 


45- 28.53 


19.14 


.64 


.05 


1.53 


.19 


1.55 


.35 


.08 


.05 


1.08 


.26 




46. 41.52 


25.53 


4.71 


.31 


1.91 


.21 


1.19 


.72 


.39 


.19 


1.63 


.05 


.14 


47- 20.71 


5.78 


3.37 


.75 


1.75 


.18 


.69 




.57 




3.34 


.12 


.04 


48. 22.75 


13.29 


2.23 


.25 


1.36 


.30 


.97 


.31 


.05 


.04 


1.39 


.05 


.12 


49. 22.20 


14.20 


2.69 


.15 


.89 


.30 


1.15 


.22 


.15 


.08 


1.22 




.04 


51. 32.05 


21.05 


4.45 


.32 


1.76 


.21 


.59 


.15 


.15 


.02 


1.79 


.04 




52. 26.39 


13.81 
20.49 
30.60 


1.75 

3.74 

5.87 


.19 
.21 
.69 


1.84 
2.11 
3.05 


.16 


.79 


.92 
1.49 


.16 


.12 
.29 
.18 




1.19 




53- 30.61 




.85 




54- 54.72 


2.11 


2.50 


.43 


2.72 


.58 




55- 20.50 


12.61 


.69 


.11 


1.09 


.23 




1.14 






1.14 


.11 




56. 28.01 


15.33 


4.56 


.22 


2.35 


.08 


.45 


.52 


.33 


.47 


1.22 


.11 




57- 51.25 


33.20 


5.09 


.96 


2.42 




1.34 


2.23 


.11 


.11 


2.01 


.22 




58. 21.51 


13.55 


2.08 


.14 


1.17 






L.39 


.28 


.14 


.69 


.06 


.10 



37 



TABLE VII {Continued) 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The average number of pupils 
in daily attendance is used as the divisor. Fifty-seven cities, for the school year 
1902-03. 

















« 






-*j . 






^ 






*o 








M 






3^ 






Number of Cit; 
Repairs. 


•4-> 

a 

V 

Pi 


3 
a 

01 



"0 



c 
.0 

3 

B 
u 


o>> 


a 

cd 
u 

3 
to 


T3 
■U 11 

aw 


•guo 
5.9 

•£ <u 

■g| 

PU< 


cd 

en 
O 
Ph 
. 

a.® 

u 
M 

01 

•3 


to 

o> 

a 


0, 

V 


CO 

3 . 
O to 

41 01 

c <z 

cti C 

£-• O) 


el 


S 

u 

a 
a 

a 
< 


•d co 

o 


o) c 
01 XI 

*3 


30. 2.75 




.02 






.31 


.22 




.12 




.34 


.07 


.42 


31. 1.79 


.10 


.11 




.08 




.15 




.04 


1.01 


.35 


.18. 


32. 3.67 




.13 




.18 


.06 


.27 




.10 


1.29 


.86 


.21 


.65 


33- 1.17 




.07 




.06 


.01 


.06 


.03 




.02 








34- .52 




.19 


.18 


.52 




.44 




.07 


.17 


.61 


.23 




35- .68 




.04 




.09 


.02 


.16 


.02 


.06 


.99 


.14 


.16 


.21 


36. .72 




.10 




.33 


.06 


.02 


.02 


.08 


1.57 


.41 


.19 


.27 


37- .45 








.04 




.11 






.63 




.33 


38. 2.32 




.05 




.27 


.02 


.14 


.02 




.31 


.05 


.18 


.29 


39. 1.36 








.06 




.59 




.04 








1.36 


40. 1.21 




.05 




.51 


.03 


.70 






.45 


.18 


.76 


41. .04 


.45 


.06 


.03 


.17 


.05 


.06 


.04 


.05 


1.27 


.15 


.36 


42. .80 








.32 


.02 


.08 


.02 


.05 




.32 


.16 


.10 


43- .65 


.04 


.11 


.07 


.01 


.01 


.13 


.02 


.01 


.69 


.17 


.22 


.17 


44. 1.12 


.60 






.32 


.05 


.07 


.01 






.15 


.18 


.10 


45- 1.98 








.32 


.04 


.25 




.03 


.68 


.13 


.05 


.14 


46. 1.07 


1.49 




.11 




.08 


.22 


.04 


.19 


.04 


.58 


.23 


.25 


47- 2.03 


.14 






.37 




.23 




.07 




.42 


.04 


.13 


48. .34 


.56 


.06 




.11 


.04 


.36 


.01 




.73 


.08 


.05 


.06 


49. 29 




.05 




.13 


.04 


.03 


.01 




.06 


.20 


.20 


.11 


51. .59 




.02 




.29 


.02 


.06 


.01 


.05 




.03 


.25 


.25 


52. 3.95 








.31 


.18 


.21 




03 


.47 




.26 


.05 


53. 1.00 




















.42 






54- 2.30 






.25 


.43 


.20 


.25 


.04 


.20 


.66 


.25 


1.21 


.20 


55- .57 


















2.01 


.29 


.29 


.23 


56. 1.50 








.16 




.08 




.07 


.25 


.17 


.06 


.11 


57- 2.23 








.11 


.11 


.13 


.07 






.45 


.22 


.22 


58. 1.12 


.24 






.03 




.03 




.06 






.03 


.42 



38 



TABLE VIII 

The cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The average number of pupils 
in daily attendance is used as the divisor. Thirty of the cities which reported in 
1902-03 reporting for the year 1903-04. 



o 

U 

1 


la 




T3 . 
« B 
d 

S P 


g 

IS 



* 


B 

.2 
V 

u 
<u 

a. 
3 

W 


in 

(D 

•c 

a 
H 

"tn 

u 


'c 
1—1 


T3 

C 

<a 

m 0. 
•7 3 


3 
fa 


en 

u 

'3 

0. 

CD 
Pi 


5- 


34.08 


25.51 


24.77 


.74 


2.31 


1.29 


2.75 


.33 


6. 


24.26 


15.80 


14.66 


1.14 


1.61 


1.63 


1.91 


2.18 


8. 


32.36 


23.65 


22.58 


1.07 


1.86 


1.83 


1.78 


1.12 


13- 


34.21 


25.52 


20.91 


4.61 


1.94 


1.82 


2.25 


.82 


14. 


28.79 


19.96 


18.58 


1.38 


2.28 


1.63 




1.36 


IS- 


24.65 


18.71 


14.88 


3.83 


1.57 


1.36 


1.44 


.69 


16. 


28.18 


21.32 


19.23 


2.09 


1.90 


1.51 


1.99 


.82 


20. 


23.06 


17.40 


16.71 


.69 


1.26 


1.21 


1.94 


.55 


27. 


26.25 


18.23 


14.57 


3.67 


2.07 


1.62 


.58 


.97 


28. 


29.38 
24.72 


20.63 
15.54 


19.50 
15.78 


1.13 
.76 


2.08 
2.08 


.87 
1.97 




3.94 


29. 


1.49 


1.26 


30. 


38.70 


26.99 


26.00 


.99 


2.42 




1.67 


3.57 


3i. 


30.92 


21.17 


20.37 


.80 


2.04 




3.12 


2.82 


32, 


28.00 


20.11 


15.52 


4.59 


2.04 


.78 


1.69 


1.02 


34. 


31.54 


21.62 


20.23 


1.39 


3.37 




1.13 


1.61 


35 


29.93 


23.40 


21.75 


1.65 


1.43 


.14 


1.90 


1.47 


36. 


31.70 


26.49 


21.20 


5.29 


1.16 




2.04 


.04 


37- 


20.71 


15.76 


12.15 


3.61 


1.08 




1.63 


.94 


39- 


28.78 


21.46 


17.80 


3.66 


1.59 






1.15 


40. 


31.14 


21.35 


15.72 


5.63 


1.14 


2.03 




1.17 


41. 


25.34 


17.94 


14.37 


3.57 


1.15 


1.40 


1.86 


.91 


42. 


29.09 


20.32 


15.72 


4.60 


1.50 


2.68 


1.38 


.98 


43- 


30.49 


22.94 


22.01 


.93 


1.92 


.92 


.94 


.89 


45- 


29.07 


21.22 


19.38 


1.84 


1.67 


1.61 


1.18 


1.47 


48. 


27.72 


19.66 


15.67 


3.99 


1.51 


1.97 


1.41 


1.07 


52. 


29.02 


19.08 


17.45 


1.63 


2.30 


2.11 


1.09 


1.37 


54- 


48.22 


30.98 


25.20 


5.78 


2.56 


8.70 




1.36 


55. 


17.91 


13.19 


12.07 


1.12 


1.06 


1.09 


.84 


.22 


56. 


30.93 


22.22 


20.85 


1.37 


2.58 


1.30 


1.36 


1.12 


57- 


52.48 


39.10 


34.07 


5.03 


2.94 


3.22 


2.07 


2.18 



39 



TABLE IX 

The average cost per pupil for two school years, 1902-03 and 1903-04. This 
table is derived from Tables VII and VIII which are based on the average number 
of pupils in daily attendance. Thirty cities. 



3 

*** 

o 
u 
<u 

1 


"3 

H 


3 

•sE 


| 



n) 

0) 

H 


_o 

'> 
u 
a 

a 
5 


to 
.2 
cfl 

"3 
w 

"w 

u 


'3 

a! 
1— 1 


a 

§ 1 
m §• 

X 


H 


3 
fa 


8 

'3 

a 

0) 


5- 


33.67 


25.33 


24.59 


.74 


2.25 


1.64 


2.39 


.33 


6. 


25.95 


18.52 


17.38 


1.14 


1.53 


1.72 


1.52 


1.63 


8. 


31.76 


22.99 


20.34 


2.65 


1.87 


1.92 


1.80 


1.14 


13- 


31.88 


23.28 


18.40 


4.88 


1.98 


1.71 


2.10 


.79 


14. 


28.77 


19.64 


18.23 


1.41 


2.11 


1.62 


2.48 


1.69 


15. 


25.00 


18.58 


16.39 


2.19 


1.55 


1.69 


1.57 


.69 


16. 


28.39 


21.35 


19.20 


2.15 


1.86 


1.63 


1.71 


.98 


20. 


23.11 


17.23 


16.64 


.59 


1.22 


1.06 


2.12 


.70 


27. 


26.10 


18.08 


14.84 


3.25 


2.01 


1.63 


.91 


.85 


28. 


29.84 


20.79 


19.63 


1.16 


2.13 


1.00 






29. 


27.11 


17.80 


16.99 


.81 


2.07 


1.99 


1.50 


1.26 


30. 


38.01 


26.62 


25.62 


1.00 


2.39 




1.76 


3.16 


3i. 


29.41 


18.85 


18.06 


.79 


1.94 




3.30 


2.30 


32. 


31.24 


20.23 


17.29 


2.94 


1.98 


.89 


1.97 


2.34 


34- 


33.75 


25.16 


21.69 


1.47 


3.14 




2.37 


1.06 


35- 


27.22 


20.88 


19.81 


1.07 


1.51 




1.14 


1.07 


36. 


31.82 


25.45 


20.04 


5.41 


1.13 




1.85 


.38 


37- 


19.98 


15.20 


11.77 


3.43 


1.04 




1.39 


.69 


39- 


30.39 


22.47 


18.87 


3.60 


1.63 




1.99 


1.25 


40. 


32.96 


22.33 


18.81 


3.52 


1.26 


2.03 


2.45 


1.19 


41. 


24.99 


17.48 


15.18 


2.30 


1.14 


1.40 


1.67 


.47 


42. 


28.79 


17.09 


15.58 


4.51 


1.49 


2.61 


1.45 


.89 


43. 


28.29 


20.42 


19.50 


.92 


1.82 


.93 


1.62 


.77 


45- 


28.80 


20.50 


19.26 


1.24 


1.60 


1.75 


1.13 


1.72 


48. 


25.26 


17.59 


14.48 


3.11 


1.43 


1.62 


1.40 


.70 


52. 


27.70 


17.32 


15.63 


1.69 


2.07 


1.91 


1.00 


2.66 


54. 


51.47 


33.72 


27.90 


5.82 


2.86 


6.15 


2.32 


1.83 


55- 


19.20 


13.24 


12.34 


.90 


1.07 


1.11 


.99 


.39 


56. 


29.47 


21.05 


18.09 


2.96 


2.46 


1.13 


1.29 


1.31 


57- 


51.86 


38.69 


33.63 


5.06 


2.68 


3.39 


2.04 


2.20 



40 



City School Expenditures 41 

EXPLANATION OF TABLES 

Table I gives the gross amount spent for maintenance and operation 
for each city, and the amounts spent for each of the several items of the 
budget. The amounts spent for all items of expenditure should, of course, 
when added, give the gross amount spent, which is scored on the table 
as "Total." The blanks which are found indicate that the city reported 
nothing under this head, or that this item is included under one head with 
some other, in which case they are underscored, if possible. The first 
line of Table I reads as follows: City number one spent $76,252 for main- 
tenance and operation, of which $47,712 were spent for teaching, $2200 
for supervision, $392 for a clerk, $5032 for janitors' salaries, $300 for 
truant officers, $3919 for text-books, etc. The data given in Table I is 
for the school year 1902-1903 for fifty-eight cities of from 10,000 to 
50,000 inhabitants, located in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
New York, and New Jersey. 

Table II gives the same information as Table I for thirty of the same 
cities for the school year 1903-1904. 

Table III reduces each item of the budget to per cent, of the total. 
The first line reads: In city number one 62.6 per cent, is spent for teach- 
ing, 2.9 per cent, for supervision, .5 per cent, for clerk, 6.6 per cent, for 
janitors' salaries, etc. If the sum of the per cents for all of the items is 
taken, they should give 100 per cent. This table gives information for 
fifty-eight cities for the school year 1902-1903, as noted in Table I. 

Table IV gives the same information as Table III for thirty of the 
same cities for the school year 1903-1904. 

Table V is derived from Tables III and IV by finding the average for 
two years. Thus, for city number five, for the first year, teaching and 
supervision amounted to 75.9 per cent, of the total (see Table III, line 5, 
first and second items) ; for the same city for the second year this item 
was 74.9 per cent, of the total (see Table IV, first line, items one and 
two); the average of the two, 75.4 per cent., gives the first figure of 
Table V. In like manner, janitors' salaries, for the first and second 
years respectively, for city number five amount to 6.6 and 6.8 per cent. 
This gives us our figure, 6.7 per cent., for janitors' salaries for city number 
five in Table V (see Table V, first line, column three). 

Table VI gives the cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. The 
number used as a divisor here is the figure half-way between the average 
number of pupils in daily attendance and the average daily enrolment, 
or average number belonging, as it is sometimes expressed. As stated 
elsewhere in the text, it is my opinion that this is a better figure than 
either average daily attendance or average daily enrolment. The only 
reason that this basis is not used throughout the study is because the 
figures for average daily enrolment could not be secured for a number 



42 City School Expenditures 

of the cities. In the section giving coefficients of correlation will be 
found a number of coefficients which were worked out on this basis from 
this table. This table gives data for forty-eight cities for the school 
year 190 2-1 903. The first line reads as follows: City number one spent 
$34.18 per pupil for the maintenance and operation of schools, of which 
$21.38 per pupil was spent for teaching, $0.99 per pupil for supervision, 
$0.17 per pupil for clerk, $2.26 per pupil for janitors' salaries, etc. 

Table VII gives the cost per pupil expressed in dollars and cents. 
The average number of pupils in daily attendance is used as the divisor 
in this case. The first line reads as follows: City number one spent 
$35.64 per pupil for the maintenance and operation of schools, of which 
$22.30 per pupil was spent for teaching, $1.03 per pupil for supervision, 
etc. This table gives data for. fifty-seven cities for the school year 1902- 
1903. 

Table VIII gives the same information as Table VII, calculated on 
the same basis for thirty of these cities for the school year 1903-1904. 
This table is read the same as Table VII. 

Table IX gives the average cost per pupil for thirty cities for two 
years, the school years 1902-1903 and 1903-1904, for the principal items 
of expense. This table is derived from Tables VII and VIII, which are 
based on the average number of pupils in daily attendance. The first 
line reads as follows: In city number five the average for two years of 
the cost per pupil for maintenance and operation of schools was $33.67 
(1902-1903, $33.27; and 1903-1904, $34.08); for teaching and super- 
vision the average was $25.33; f° r teaching alone, $24.59, etc - 

Throughout the tables a number written across the space between 
the columns indicates that this number applies to the two adjoining 
columns taken together, and similarly an underscore running across 
three or more columns indicates that the number applies to these col- 
umns collectively. 

VARIABILITY 

In the tables given above, which compare the different items 
of the school budget on a common basis, the most striking thing 
to be noticed is the variability which exists among the cities. 
It is the purpose of this section to consider somewhat minutely 
the problem of variability in connection with the apportionment 
of school moneys among the several items of the budget. It 
may not be out of place here to call attention to the ambiguity 
if not the positive misrepresentation of facts which results when, 
as in most cases where such data have been collected, the average 
alone is given to represent the facts. Of course, if one accepts 



City School Expenditures 43 

the average as meaning simply that the sum of all the cases is 
divided by their number, no harm is done ; but if one takes the 
average as indicative of the general tendency or as a measure 
applicable to the majority of the cases, he may be most com- 
pletely deluded. The average expenditure per pupil for cities 
Nos. 22, 23, 54, and 57 for the first year (see Table VII) is $31.94. 
They spent $8.94, $12.85, $54.72, and $51.25 respectively per 
pupil. The average in this case does not correctly represent 
the group nor any particular city within the group. The thing 
that interests us in the measurement of any trait in a group is 
the range or limits within which all of the cases lie, and the 
grouping of the cases within these limits. 

If we consider the facts found in the tables already given 
(Tables I to IX), we find that cities differ greatly not only in 
the amount per pupil which they spend for the maintenance and 
operation of their schools, but also that even where cities spend 
about the same amount per child, the distribution of this money 
among the several items of the budget is very different. Again, 
when we consider simply the distribution of the money that is 
spent, regardless of the amount, as is done in the table which 
gives the per cent, which each item is of the total cost of main- 
tenance and operation, we find that there is the greatest vari- 
ability in practice. One city spends 44 % of the cost for 
maintenance and operation (see Table III) for teaching and 
supervision, while another spends 82 % for the same purposes; 
the janitors receive from 3 % to 14 % of the money used to run 
the schools; supervision costs one city 1 % and another city 
17 % of the whole amount spent; salaries for teaching vary 
from 27 % to 73 % of the budget. It would seem impossible 
that the money is properly distributed in every case when we 
consider this remarkable variability in practice. 

The undistributed expenditure reported under the head 
"Miscellaneous" needs to be considered in any argument con- 
cerning the variability in any item as reported by several cities. 
It is possible that a very large part of the amount thus reported 
properly belongs to some one of the items for which a report 
has been made. It may be that the item teaching, supervision, 
fuel, janitors' salaries, repairs, or some other would be greatly 
increased if the report had properly distributed the money. It 
was to guard against any such obscurity that the attempt was 



44 City School Expenditures 

made in this study to secure a complete distribution of expen- 
ditures in the cities from which information was received, and, 
as has been noted above, this attempt was to a remarkable 
degree successful. Thirty cities out of fifty-eight for the first 
year report nothing under this head ; sixteen reported less than 
2 %, ten others less than 5 %, and the two remaining reported 
5.14 % and 6.75 %, respectively, as unclassified expenditures. 
For the second year, of thirty cities reporting, eighteen report 
nothing under "Miscellaneous"; and of the remaining twelve, 
eight report 1 % or less; three, 2 %; and one, 3.76 % under 
this head. It is quite evident, I believe, that the miscellaneous 
item is so small, even where it occurs, that it may not be used 
as an explanation of the variability which occurs in all items 
of expenditure ; and I feel that it is safe to say that the accurate 
distributions of the amounts reported under this head would 
not alter the conclusions reached in this paper. 

It might be argued that the great variability is due to the 
fact that the cities for which data are given are not comparable, 
that one has at its command a much larger amount of money in 
proportion to the number of children to be educated than an- 
other, and hence the variability. It is true that rightly or 
wrongly some of these cities are much better provided with 
money than others, but that does not seem to be the cause of 
the great variability in the apportionment of the money which 
they do have. Take, for example, cities Nos. 3, 6, 19, 21, 44, 
and 56. From the information given in Tables I and III, the 
following table may be built up : 

No. of Total No. of pupils in Cost 

City. Expense. daily attendance. per pupil. 

3. $52,708 1,876 $28.06 

6. 50,613 1,826 27.65 

19. 52,870 1,831 28.90 

21. 52,178 2,127 24.50 

44. 48,410 1,850 26.18 

56. 50,192 1,794 28.01 

Per cent, spent for each item: 

No of _ ^. • • t -x. t^ 1 Text-books _ 

City Teaching. Supervision. Janitors. Fuel. an( j Supplies. Repairs. 



3- 



Teaching. 


Supervision. 


Janitors. 


Fuel. 


68.2 


4. 


7.1 


4.7 


72.9 


4.2 


5.3 


6.1 


62.9 


3.4 


6.8 


7.2 


69.1 


12.6 


5.9 


3.8 


63.8 


4.6 


6.1 


10. 


54.6 


16.3 


8.4 


4.4 



6.1 3.9 



6. 72.9 4.2 5.3 6.1 6.6 4. 

iq. 62.9 3.4 6.8 7.2 7.5 5.7 

1.5 3.8 



21. 

"44 
56'. 54.6 16.3 8.4 4.4 3.4 5.3 



1.2 4.3 



City School Expenditures 45 

The variation found cannot be due in these cases to a large 
undistributed amount, for five of these cities distributed their 
expenditures in the special reports received from them accord- 
ing to the classification given, without finding it necessary to 
report anything under the head "Miscellaneous," and the other 
(No. 56) reports only nine-tenths of 1 % under this head (see 
Table III). 

In these cities the amount of money available and the num- 
ber of pupils to be provided for do not differ very much. We 
might expect that if there were any principle which controlled 
the apportionment of money, or if the money were apportioned 
in the best way, the proportion of the whole cost of main- 
tenance and operation spent for any of the principal items 
would be approximately the same in these cities. By glancing 
at the table, however, we see here the same marked variability 
which is found when the whole number of cities is considered. 
Not that there is quite so great a range, which would be very 
unusual because of the limited number of cases, but that the 
distribution of money among the several items seems not to be 
determined by any common principle. 

It seems strange that of two cities (No. 6 and No. 56) which 
spend respectively $50,613 for 1826 pupils and $50,192 for 1794 
pupils, one should spend 72.9 % of its money for teaching 
while the other spends 54.6 % for the same purpose. Of course, 
if we combine the items of teaching and supervision, they do not 
differ so much (77.1 % and 70.9 %), but if this combination of 
items is made throughout for the cities of this table , we have a 
variation in the proportion spent for teaching and supervision 
of from 66.3 % to 81.7 % of the total (see Nos. 19 and 21). 
For the other items in these cities in which the conditions seem 
to be so much alike, the table shows the same variability. Jani- 
tors' salaries vary from 5.3 % to 8.4 %; fuel, from 3.8 % to 
10 % (in cities which spend respectively $24.50 and $26.18 per 
pupil); text-books and supplies, from 1.2 % to 7.5 %; and 
repairs from 3.8 % to 5.7 % of the total. 

It is, indeed, strange if 44 % of the cost of maintenance and 
operation can in one city provide for proper teaching and super- 
vision (see Table III.), that in another city, which spends more 
per pupil, it requires 82 % of the total for this item. It would 
seem that owing to tradition, to poor business management, or 



46 City School Expenditures 

to some other more invidious cause, the money spent is not 
always spent to the best advantage. It seems possible, also, 
that the superintendent whose attention is called to the wide 
variation in any one item of his budget, might be led to investi- 
gate the matter, in order to determine whether there is any good 
reason for such deviation from the ordinary or normal condi- 
tion of affairs. 

A more careful study of the variability of the several items 
of the budget shows that in many cases a large expenditure for 
one item is accompanied by a small expenditure for another. 
Again, in other cases large expenditures in one item seem to 
be accompanied by large expenditures in others and small ex- 
penditures in some by small expenditures in others. One has 
but to examine carefully the tables to have suggested the pos- 
sibility of significant relationships. In another section I shall 
consider this matter more fully and measure a number of these 
relationships exactly by means of the Pearson Coefficient of 
Correlation. 

There are three ways in which we shall express the variabil- 
ity in order to get as clear an idea as is possible of the lack of 
uniformity and in order to suggest the problems which arise 
because of this variability. 

From the tables already given (see Tables I to IX), it is 
possible for us to make out frequency tables like those which 
follow. In these tables the first column gives the amount of 
money spent, or the per cent, of the total which the item is, 
and the second column gives the number of instances where this 
is true. They give all the facts concerning variability; not 
only the range or limits within which all of the cases lie, but 
also the exact placing of every case. 

EXPLANATION OF TABLES 

Tables X, XI, XII, and XIII give information for the cities reporting 
for the school year 1 902-1 903. 

Table X reads as follows: one city spends 27 % for teaching; one, 
49 %; one, 52 %; one, 53 %; two, 54 %, etc. 

Table XI reads as follows : two cities spend 1 % for supervision ; eleven 
spend, 2 %; seven, 3 %, etc. 

Reading the first lines of Tables XII and XIII, we find that four 
cities spent 3 % of the budget for janitors' salaries, and that six cities 
spent 3 % for fuel. 



TABLES OF FREQUENCY 

The per cent, of the total expenditure for maintenance and operation which is 
spent for teaching, supervision, janitors' salaries, and fuel. Fifty-eight cities, re- 
porting for the school year 1902-03. 



Table X 


Table XI 


Table 


XII 


Table 


XIII 


Teaching. 


Supervision. 


Janitors 


' Salaries. 


Fuel. 


Per Cent. 


Frequency. 


Per Cent. 


Frequency. 


Per Cent. 


Frequency. 


Per Cent. 


Frequency. 


27 


1 


1 


2 


3 


4 


3 


6 


28 


1 


2 


11 


4 


6 


4 


12 


29 





3 


7 


5 


15 


5 


10 


30 





4 


6 


6 


19 


6 


11 


31 





5 


1 


7 


7 


7 


4 


32 





6 


2 


8 


3 


8 


3 


33 





7 


5 


9 


2 


9 


3 


34 





8 





10 





10 


2 


35 





9 


5 


11 





11 





36 





10 


3 


12 





12 


1 


37 





11 


4 


13 





13 





38 





12 


3 


14 


1 


14 





39 





13 


2 






15 





40 





14 









16 


2 


41 





15 


1 










42 





16 


4 










43 





17 


2 










44 

















45 

















46 

















47 

















48 

















49 


1 














50 

















51 

















52 


1 














53 


1 














54 


2 














55 


2 














56 


3 














57 

















58 


3 














59 


2 














60 

















61 


3 














62 


6 














63 


6 














64 


6 














65 


3 














66 


2 














67 


3 














68 


2 














69 


2 














70 


1 














71 


2 














72 


1 














73 


4 















47 



TABLES OF FREQUENCY 

The per cent, of the total expenditure for maintenance and operation which is 
spent for teaching, supervision, janitors' salaries, and fuel. Average for two years, 
thirty cities reporting for the school years 1902-03 and 1903-04. 



Table 


XIV 


Table XV 


Table 


XVI 


Table 


XVII 


Teaching. 


Supervision. 


Janitors' 


Salaries. 


Fuel 


:. 


Per Cent. 


Frequency. 


Per Cent. 


Frequency. 


Per Cent. 


Frequency 


Per Cent. ] 


Frequency. 


54 


3 


2 


4 


3 


2 


3 


4 


55 


2 


3 


4 


4 


1 


4 


3 


56 


1 


4 


5 


5 


10 


5 


8 


57 


2 


5 





6 


11 


6 


9 


58 





6 


1 


7 


4 


7 


2 


59 


2 


7 


1 


8 


1 


8 


2 


60 


2 


8 


2 


9 


1 


9 





61 


1 


9 


2 






10 





62 


3 


10 


2 






11 


1 


63 


1 


11 


3 










64 


4 


12 


2 










65 


2 


13 













66 


2 


14 













67 


2 


15 


2 










68 


1 


16 













69 





17 


2 










70 

















71 

















72 


2 














73 


1 















4 s 



TABLES OF FREQUENCY 

Cost per pupil expressed in dollars, the average daily attendance being used as 
the basis of calculation. Fifty-eight cities, reporting for the school year 1902-03. 



Table 


XVIII 


Tab 


LE XIX 


Table XX 


Table XXI 


Table 


XXII 


Total Cost 


per Pupil. 


Teaching and 
Supervision. 


Janitors' 


Salaries. 




Fuel. 


Text-Books and 
Supplies. 


Dollars. Frequency. 


Dollars. 


Frequency. 


Dollars. Frequency. 


Dollars. 


Frequency. 


Dollars. Frequency. 


8 


1 


6 


1 


.4 


1 


.4 


1 


.2 


2 


9 





7 


1 


.5 





.5 





.3 


1 


10 





8 





.6 





.6 





.4 


1 


11 





9 


1 


.7 





.7 


1 


.5 





12 


1 


10 





.8 





.8 


1 


.6 





13 





11 


1 


.9 


2 


.9 


1 


.7 


1 


14 





12 





1.0 


3 


1.0 


2 


.8 





15 


1 


13 


1 


1.1 


4 


1.1 


3 


.9 


2 


16 





14 


2 


1.2 





1.2 


5 


1.0 


2 


17 





15 


3 


1.3 


2 


1.3 


4 


1.1 


2 


18 





16 


3 


1.4 


3 


1.4 


3 


1.2 


1 


19 


1 


17 


6 


1.5 


5 


1.5 


2 


1.3 


3 


20 


2 


18 


3 


1.6 


2 


1.6 


3 


1.4 


1 


21 


2 


19 


8 


1.7 


3 


1.7 


3 


1.5 


2 


22 


2 


20 


3 


1.8 


4 


1.8 


3 


1.6 


4 


23 


2 


21 


5 


1.9 


8 


1.9 


1 


1.7 


3 


24 


4 


22 


1 


2.0 


3 


2.0 


5 


1.8 


1 


25 


1 


23 


5 


2.1 


3 


2.1 





1.9 


3 


26 


4 


24 


4 


2.2 


2 


2.2 


3 


2.0 


5 


27 


2 


25 


3 


2.3 


4 


2.3 


2 


2.1 


2 


28 


8 


26 


2 


2.4 


2 


2.4 





2.2 





29 


4 


27 





2.5 


2 


2.5 





2.3 


1 


30 


2 


28 





2.6 


1 


2.6 


2 


2.4 





31 


5 


29 





2.7 





2.7 


1 


2.5 


1 


32 


3 


30 


1 


2.8 





2.8 





2.6 





33 


1 


31 





2.9 


1 


2.9 


1 


2.7 





34 


2 


32 


1 


3.0 


1 


3.0 





2.8 





35 


3 


33 









3.1 





2.9 





36 


1 


34 









3.2 





3.0 


1 


37 


1 


35 









3.3 


1 


3.1 





38 





36 


1 






3.4 


1 


3.2 





39 





37 









3.5 





3.3 





40 





38 


1 






3.6 


1 


3.4 





41 


1 










3.7 





3.5 


1 


42 













3.8 





3.6 





43 


1 










3.9 





3.7 





44 













4.0 





3.8 





45 













4.1 





3.9 





46 













4.2 





4.0 





47 













4.3 





4.1 





48 













4.4 





4.2 





49 













4.5 





4.3 





50 













4.6 





4.4 





51 


1 










4.7 


1 


4.5 





52 

















4.6 


1 


53 





















54 


1 



















49 



TABLES OF FREQUENCY 

Cost per pupil expressed in dollars, average for two years, the average daily at- 
tendance being used as the basis of calculation. Thirty cities, reporting for the 
school years 1902-03 and 1903-04. 

Table XXIII Table XXIV Table XXV Table XXVI Table XXVII 



Total Cost per Teaching and Janitors' Salaries. Fuel. Text-Books and 

Pupil. Supervision. Supplies. 

Dollars. Frequency. Dollars. Frequency. Dollars. Frequency. Dollars. Frequency. Dollars. Frequency. 



19 


2 


















20 





13 


1 


1.0 


2 


.9 


2 


.8 


1 


21 





14 





1.1 


2 


1.0 


1 


.9 


1 


22 





15 


1 


1.2 


2 


1.1 


1 


1.0 


2 


23 


1 


16 





1.3 





1.2 


1 


1.1 


2 


24 


1 


17 


6 


1.4 


2 


1.3 


1 


1.2 





25 


3 


18 


4 


1.5 


3 


1.4 


2 


1.3 





26 


1 


19 


1 


1.6 


2 


1.5 


3 


1.4 


1 


27 


3 


20 


5 


1.7 





1.6 


3 


1.5 





28 


5 


21 


2 


1.8 


3 


1.7 


2 


1.6 


6 


29 


3 


22 


3 


1.9 


3 


1.8 


2 


1.7 


3 


30 


1 


23 


1 


2.0 


3 


1.9 


2 


1.8 





31 


4 


24 





2.1 


2 


2.0 


1 


1.9 


3 


32 


1 


25 


3 


2.2 


1 


2.1 


2 


2.0 


1 


33 


2 


26 


1 


2.3 


1 


2.2 





2.1 





34 





27 





2.4 


1 


2.3 


3 


2.2 





35 





28 





2.5 





2.4 


2 


2.3 





36 





29 





2.6 


1 


2.5 





2.4 





37 





30 





2.7 





2.6 





2.5 





38 


1 


31 





2.8 


1 


2.7 





2.6 


1 


39 





32 





2.9 





2.8 





2.7 





40 





33 


1 


3.0 





2.9 





2.8 





41 





34 





3.1 


1 


3.0 





2.9 





42 





35 









3.1 





3.0 





43 





36 









3.2 





3.1 





44 





37 









3.3 


1 


3.2 





45 





38 


1 










3.3 


1 


46 

















3.4 





47 

















3.5 





48 

















3.6 





49 

















3.7 





50 

















3.8 





51 


2 














3.9 
4.0 

4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.4 
4.5 
4.6 
4.7 
4.8 
4.9 
5.0 
5.1 
5.2 
5.3 
5.4 
5.5 
5.6 
5.7 
5.8 
5.9 
6.0 
6.1 

























1 



City School Expenditures 51 

Tables XIV to XVII, inclusive, are frequency tables based upon the 
average of the first and second years' figures from thirty cities. It will 
be noticed that the range is somewhat less, due largely to the fact that 
there are fewer cases. These tables are read precisely as Tables X to 
XIII, illustrated above. 

The tables for the first year's figures alone are, of course, 
less reliable than those which give the average for two years, 
so far as any one city is concerned. However, the greater vari- 
ability found in these figures for the first year which does not 
appear when the average for the two years is taken is due largely 
to the fact that many of the cities which give the extreme varia- 
tion have not yet reported for two years. In Table No. X, for 
example, the cities reporting 27%, 28%, 49%, and 52 %, 
respectively, for teaching, are cities Nos. 47, 23, 11, and 52, 
none of which reported for the second year (see Tables III and 
IV). The variability for the first year's figures is, simply be- 
cause there are more cases, more nearly a correct representation 
of the facts of variability, we believe, than the average of the 
two years where many of the extreme cases are not found. It 
is remarkable that so small a proportion as 27 % should be 
devoted to teaching in one case, when other cities use 73 % of 
their funds for this purpose, — that some cities should give 2.7 
times as great a proportion for teaching as others. 

The variation in the proportion which is spent for super- 
vision is not less remarkable. Here the cities seem to divide 
themselves into groups — those which spend a comparatively 
large proportion of their money for supervision, and those in 
which this item is allowed a smaller share of the money. One 
feels that supervision which costs 1 7 % of the money available 
for schools should produce remarkable results in the way of 
saving time and energy for teachers and pupils, if it is to be 
justified when compared with other cities in which 2 % of the 
budget seems to secure satisfactory supervision. 

The range for janitors' salaries (Table XII) may indicate a 
real difference in the care of school buildings, or, in rare in- 
stances, perhaps some connection between ward politics and the 
janitors' position. Leaving out the most extreme case, it seems 
rather remarkable that in some instances one dollar out of every 
eleven available for the maintenance and operation of the 
schools should be spent for the care of buildings. 



52 City School Expenditures 

That fuel should be allowed in some cities three times as 
great a proportion of the money spent as in others (see Table 
XIII) would not seem strange if our cities were found in sec- 
tions of the country with very different climatic conditions ; 
but that four or even five times as much should be necessary 
under conditions which are not greatly different seems prepos- 
terous. 

Tables XIV to XVII, which are based on the average for 
two years, give the most accurate information we have for the 
thirty cities which reported two years. The limits within which 
the cases lie are, as has already been noted, somewhat smaller 
than in the case of the first year's figures considered alone. 
This is due largely to the fact that we have a smaller number 
of cases. The variability is, nevertheless, sufficiently striking 
with a range of from 54 % to 73 % for teaching, from 2 % to 
17 % for supervision, from 3 % to 9 % for janitors' salaries, and 
from 3 % to 11 % for fuel. 

Tables XVIII to XXII give the variability for the cost per 
pupil for some of the principal items of the budget. The cost 
per pupil as given here is based on the average daily attendance 
(see Table VII). 

Table XVIII reads as follows: one city spent for main- 
tenance and operation per pupil in attendance, $8.00; one city, 
$12.00; one city, $15.00; one city, $19.00; two cities, $20.00; 
two cities, $21.00, etc. 

Tables XXIII to XXVII give the variability for some of the 
principal items of the budget on the cost per pupil basis, the 
average amount spent per pupil for two years being used (see 
Table IX). Table XXIII, for instance, reads as follows: the 
average amount for two years spent for maintenance and opera- 
tion per pupil in attendance for two cities was $29.00; one city, 
$23.00; one city, $24.00; three cities, $25.00, etc. 

In the tables given above, we have an expression of the 
variability in terms of the amount of money spent. We some- 
times think of the cities in the region covered by this study as 
spending a very large amount for public education. The average 
inhabitant, if not the school officers themselves, of any of these 
cities will probably say that their school system is quite as good 
as any other, or at least as good as the average. As a matter of 
fact, we find a great variability in the total amount per pupil 



City School Expenditures 53 

spent, as well as in the amount spent for various items. No one 
believes that the city which spends $54.00 per pupil furnishes 
an education six and three-quarter times as good as the city 
which spends only $8.00 per pupil. On the other hand, it 
hardly seems possible that the opportunity for education in the 
eight-dollar city can be equal to that found in the fifty-four- 
dollar city. Teaching and supervision which cost $6.00 per 
child are hardly likely to be as good as those which cost three, 
four, five, or even six times as much. No argument based upon 
the difference in the cost of living could account for so great a 
difference in the cost of instruction. Either the teachers re- 
ceive a very much smaller salary in the cities which pay a rela- 
tively small amount per pupil, or they have much larger classes 
to instruct, or both conditions taken together explain the 
variability. 

One may infer that the number of children determines the 
number of seatings which must be furnished, if not the number 
and size of buildings ; and yet janitors' salaries may cost from 
40 cents to $3.00 per pupil, and fuel from 40 cents to $4.70 per 
pupil. 

If we neglect the cases where a very little is spent for text- 
books and supplies, — the cases where they are not furnished 
free to pupils, — we still find that some cities spend three or four 
times as much per pupil as others for these articles. It seems 
rather remarkable that the real value of books and supplies fur- 
nished to pupils should vary so much; and even if this were 
the case, one might question whether the money is spent to 
best advantage in those cities which spend the larger amounts. 
Might not a part of this money have been spent to greater ad- 
vantage in some other way? 

The limits within which all of the cases lie are significant, 
but are not so true a measure of the variability of the group as 
are the limits within which the middle 50 % of the cases lie. 
A single exceptional case may double the range within which 
all of the cases lie, but manifestly this does not double the 
variability of the group. This figure, which we call 2 Q, is found 
by counting in from both the upper and lower limits until 25 % 
of the cases have been covered, and then finding the range 
within which the remaining 50 % of the cases lie. For instance, 
in Table X, in which there are 58 cases, we count off from the 



54 City School Expenditures 

lower limit fifteen cases (25 % = 14J), which brings us to the 
group of three cities which spend 58 % of their money for 
teaching; in like manner, counting from the other extreme, 
25 % of the cases are found to spend more than 67 % of their 
money for teaching. The limits within which the middle 50 % 
of the cases lie are, then, 58 and 67, and 2 Q equals (67 — 58 =9) 
nine. After we have found the 2 Q, the relation which it bears 
to the median gives us a still better idea of the variability of 
the group. If it is desired to compare the variability of the 
group in several traits, the relation of the 2 Q to the square 
root of the median is more exact than either of the figures before 
suggested because this measure will be less affected by errors 
due to inaccuracy of measurements, or to the small number of 
measurements made. In the table below, 2 Q, the per cent, 
which 2 Q is of the median, and the per cent, which 2 Q is of 
the square root of the median are given. This table is derived 
from the frequency tables, Tables X to XXVII inclusive. 



o 



Per cent, of total spent for each item. First 
year's figures. See Tables X to XIII 
inclusive : 

Teaching 9 

Supervision 8 

Janitors' Salaries. 1 

Fuel 3 

Per cent, of total spent for each item. 

Average of two years' figures. See 

Tables XIV to XVII inclusive: 

Teaching 9 

Supervision 8 

Janitors' Salaries 4 

Fuel 1 

Cost per pupil. First year's figures. See 
Tables XVIII to XXII inclusive: 

Total cost per pupil 7 

Teaching and Supervision 6 

Janitors' Salaries .7 

Fuel 8 

Text-Books and Supplies .9 



a 

Mr 

2s 

u 

O O 

u 


03 

tit,. 
•3 a) 5 

-S 3-2 
& cr-a 

. M a> 

ca a 

a. 


14 


113 


105 


290 


16 


40 


50 


123 


14 


112 


100 


283 


65 


166 


16 


42 


25 


132 


33 


136 


37 


50 


50 


61 


53 


69 



City School Expenditures 55 



?a III 

8*8 8^2 



Oost per pupil. Average of two years' 
figures. See Tables XXIII to XXVII 
inclusive : 

Total cost per pupil 5 

Teaching and Supervision 5 

Janitors' Salaries 

Fuel 

Text-Books and Supplies 





17 


93 




25 


111 


7 


37 


50 


7 


41 


53 


8 


50 


61 



In the diagrams which follow, the variability is expressed 
graphically. The heavy line gives the distribution based on the 
average of the first and second years' figures, while the dotted 
line gives the distribution for the first year's figures from those 
cities which reported both years. Along the horizontal axis is 
indicated the per cent, of the total (or cost per pupil), while the 
vertical distance indicates the number of cases. 

This method of indicating variability enables one who is 
accustomed to this mode of representation to take in at a glance 
at least the more striking features. It will be noticed that in 
the main the distribution for the first year's figures, taken alone 
(the dotted line), conforms to that for the average of the two 
years. This is significant in that it shows that the conclusions 
which may be drawn from the one year's figures are fairly 
reliable, and that we were justified in our treatment of variabil- 
ity above to make use of the first year's figures with the greater 
number of cases. 



56 



City School Expenditures 



FIG. 1. 




53 55 5? 



5t 60 



FIG. 2. 



2 4 



64 



! i 



n^ 



8 « 



I... 




15 

FIO.3. 



70 



78 80 



FIG.4 



1 



J 



3 4 6 9 

Surfaces of Frequency on the Per Cent, of Total Basis. 

Fig. i. — Teaching. 

Fig 'a. — Supervision. 

Fig. 3. — Teaching and Supervision, 

Fig. 4. — Janitors' Salaries 



City School Expenditures 



57 



F I G. & 



1 3 5 



11 13 



F I Q. 6. 



i — r ~ i 



3 4 



12 



PI O. 7. 



~n 



X 



12 3 7 K) 14 

Surfaces of Frequency on the Per Cent, of Total Basis 

Fig. 5. — Text-Books and Supplies. 
Fig. 6.— Fuel. 
Fig. 7. — Repairs. 



58 



City School Expenditures 



■£=2 



FIG. 8. 



13 IS 



19 



27 



33 



39 







FIG. 9. 


-. 


: 






• 1 






: 1 


; 


-. i i 



11 13 IS 



19 



29 33 



1 

1 




FIG. 10. 


















; 










: 1 


J ! .. 




| 


1 






i 



•50 1 1.5 



4. 



5.5 



FLFL* 



FIG. 11. 



im 



r=u 



1. 1.2S 1.75 



FIG. 12. 



■9 1.1 1.3 U 2.5 W 

Surfaces of Frequency on the Cost per Pupil Basis 

Fig. 8. — Teaching and Supervision. 

Fig. 9. — Teaching. 

Fig. 10. — Supervision. 

Fig. 11. — Janitors' Salaries. 

Fig. 12. — Text-Books and Supplies. 



City School Expenditures 



59 



QfZ 



pig. ia 



h=, 



.9 1.1 1.3 



1.7 



2.7 



3.3 



i 


■ ■ 






FIG. 14. 








.... 






n-r 


— i 


r-~) 






n 









50 .75 



t 2. 3. 

Surfaces of Frequency on the Cost per Pupil Basis 

Fig. 13. — Fuel. 
Fig. 14. — Repairs. 



Still another method of indicating variability is by means of 
giving the deviation for each of the items from some central 
figure which may be agreed upon. 

In the tables which follow, the deviations are calculated 
from the median. The median, which is simply the point above 
and below which fifty per cent, of the cases lie, is, we believe, 
the best figure to use in this case as representing a central ten- 
dency. It is unambiguous and is not so much influenced by ex- 
treme cases nor by error as the average would be. 

EXPLANATION OF TABLES 

Table XXVIII gives the medians and deviations from them for the 
cost per pupil based on the average number of pupils in daily attendance . 
The data are from fifty-seven cities reporting for the school year 1902- 
1903 (see Table VII). The first line of the table gives the medians. 
One half of the cities spend less than $28.50 or just $28.50 per pupil, 
while the other half spend more than $28.50 or just that amount per 
pupil for maintenance and operation of their schools. In like manner, 
$19.96 marks the point above and below which half of the cities lie in 
their expenditure for teaching and supervision; $18.10 is the median for 
teaching alone; $1.75 is the median for supervision, and so on for the 
other items given. In the body of the table, deviations below the me- 
dian are marked with a minus sign, those above are not marked. 



60 City School Expenditures 

Line number nine reads as follows: City number eight spends $2.66 
per pupil more than the median ($28.50) for the maintenance and opera- 
tion of schools; $2.37 per pupil more than the median ($19.96) for teach- 
ing and supervision; the median amount, $18.10 per pupil, for teaching; 
$2.48 per pupil more than the median for supervision, etc. 

Table XXIX gives the medians and deviations from them for the 
per cent, which each item is of the total cost of maintenance and opera- 
tion. The data from which this table is derived are found in Table III, 
which gives information for fifty-eight cities for the school year 1902- 
1903. The first line of the table gives the medians for the several items 
of expenditure expressed as per cents and hundredths of a per cent. As 
in Table XXVIII, the deviations below the median are marked with a 
minus sign while those above are left unmarked. Line two reads as 
follows: City number one spent 5.5 % less than the median (71.15 %) 
for teaching and supervision; i. e., 65.65 % of the total cost of mainten- 
ance and operation was spent for teaching and supervision. If we skip 
the next two items, we find that this city spent .42 % more than the 
median (6.19 %) for janitors' salaries; 2.24 % more than the median 
(2.91 %) for text-books, etc. 

Table XXX gives medians and deviations on cost per pupil basis for 
thirty cities, reporting for the school year 1 903-1 904. The figures refer 
to dollars and tenths of a dollar. This table is derived from Table VIII. 
The explanation given for Table XXVIII makes this table clear, since 
this table differs from Table XXVIII only in that it is based on the 
second year's data and in that it gives the deviations for fewer items. 

Table XXXI gives medians and deviations for per cent, which each 
item is of the total cost of maintenance and operation. The data are 
from thirty cities for the school year 1903-1904 (see Table IV). The 
figures refer to per cents and tenths of one per cent. The explanation 
for Table XXIX, which gives the same information for the school year 
1902-1903, may be referred to by any one who has difficulty in under- 
standing this table. 

Tables XXXII and XXXIII give medians and deviations from 
medians on both cost per pupil and per cent, of total basis, which are 
based on two years' figures. These tables are made up by taking the 
average of the cost per pupil, or the per cent, of total of each item for 
two years. From these tables, giving the average for each item for two 
years, medians are calculated and deviations found as in the tables 
based on a single year's figures. These tables are read precisely as 
Tables XXX and XXXI. 

From these tables we can get again the distribution of the 
cases by grouping those which vary by the same amount. If 



City School Expenditures 61 

this were done we would get frequency tables similar to those 
given above, or if we represented the distribution graphically, 
surfaces of distribution like those already given. 

By examining these tables carefully, it will be seen that cer- 
tain variations in one item are accompanied by like variations 
in some other item, or that a plus deviation in one item is ac- 
companied by a negative deviation for the other, or vice versa. 
Take, for example, the items of janitors' salaries and salaries for 
teaching and supervision, as given in Table XXIX (per cent, of 
total first year's figures). In these items one is struck by the 
fact that a plus deviation in salaries paid janitors is often ac- 
companied by a negative deviation for teaching and supervision, 
and vice versa. Picking out the cases, a table like the following 
may be made: 



No. of City. 


Janitors' Salaries. 


Salaries for Teaching 
and Supervision. 


I. 


+ 4. 


-5.5 


7- 


+ 3.3 


-3.4 


9- 


+ 1.3 


-1.5 


11. 


+ 3. 


-9.9 


14. 


+ .7 


-3.6 


17. 


+ .8 


- .5 


19. 


+ .6 


-5.9 


23. 


+ 8.7 


-13.0 


27. 


+ 1.1 


-4.5 


28. 


+ 1.0 


-2.0 


29. 


+ .8 


-6.6 


30. 


+ .1 


- .1 


3i. 


+ .4 


-11.8 


34- 


+ 1.9 


-2.4 


43- 


+ 1.5 


-2.4 


47. 


+ 2.3 


-26.9 


52. 


+ .8 


-12.2 


56. 


+ 2.2 


- .2 


6 


- .9 


+ 5.9 


8. 


- .1 


+ .5 


10 


- .3 


+ 4.3 


20. 


-1.0 


+ 2.4 


21. 


- .3 


+ 10.5 


22. 


-2.0 


+ 3.9 


25. 


-1.3 


+ 6.7 


26. 


- .3 


+ 1.8 


33. 


- .1 


+ 11.1 


36. 


-2.7 


+ 5.2 


37- 


- .8 


+ 4.9 


38. 


-2.4 


+ 2.8 


39- 


-1.0 


+ 2.2 


46. 


-1.6 


+ 1.4 


49. 


-2.2 


+ 4.8 


5i. 


- .7 


+ 8.4 


57. 


-1.5 


+ 3.4 


58. 


- .8 


+ 1.6 



TABLE XXVIII 

Medians and deviations from medians for cost per pupil based on the average 
number of pupils in daily attendance, expressed as dollars and cents. Fifty-eight 
cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



i? 



Medians. 28.50 19.96 18.10 1.75 1.87 .82 .64 



I. 


7.14 


3.37 


4.20 


— .72 


.48 


1.01 


.54 


2. 


- .50 


— 1.43 


— .50 


— .82 




.42 


-.33 


3- 


— .44 


.26 


1.00 


— .63 


.11 






4- 


3.40 


3.83 


2.25 


1.69 


.40 


.26 


.28 


5. 


4.77 


5.19 


6.31 


— 1.01 


.32 






6. 


- .85 


1.29 


2.00 


— .60 


— .42 






7- 


-6.89 


— 5.34 


— 5.19 


— .04 


.18 


- .28 


.17 


8. 


2.66 


2.37 





2.48 


.02 


.73 


.18 


9- 


2.51 


1.53 


2.53 


— .89 


.45 






10. 


14.73 


2.68 


13.81 


— 1.02 


.69 


.17 


.75 


II. 


.51 


— 2.19 


— 3.68 


1.60 


.78 






12. 


.70 


1.45 


.65 


.91 


.34 


.03 




13- 


1.06 


1.08 


— 2.20 


3.39 


.16 


— .05 


.19 


14- 


.25 


— .63 


— .21 


— .31 


.08 


.07 


.07 


15. 


-3.15 


— 1.50 


— .19 


— 1.20 


— .34 


.19 


.37 


16. 


- .09 


1.43 


1.07 


.47 


— .05 





• 30 


17. 


7.50 


5.46 


4.50 


1.07 


.66 


.23 


.47 


18. 


7.20 


6.18 


7.07 


— .15 


.56 






19. 


.40 


— .82 


.06 


— .77 


.10 


.55 


.18 


20. 


— 5.34 


— 2.89 


— 1.52 


— 1.26 


— .68 


— .27 


- .28 


21. 


— 4.00 


.02 


— 1.20 


1.33 


— .43 




— -26 


22. 


— 19.56 


— 13.22 


— 11.47 


— 1.64 


— 1.40 




— .11 


23. 


— 15.65 


— 12.49 


— 14.41 


2.03 


.05 






24. 


— 13.24 


— 8.68 


— 8.23 


— .34 


— .91 


— .72 


— .42 


25. 


2.50 


4.16 


3.57 


.75 


— .34 


- .71 


— .53 


26. 


4.17 


3.88 


.27 


3.72 


.05 


- .16 


.35 


27. 


1.54 


— 2.03 


— 2.99 


1.07 


.08 


.82 




28. 


1.80 


1.00 


1.67 


— .56 


.32 







62 



TABLE XXVIII {Continued) 

Medians and deviations from medians for cost per pupil based on the average 
number of pupils in daily attendance, expressed as dollars and cents. Fifty-eight 
cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



22. 



J2J 



Medians. 1.68 1.63 1.09 .18 .18 

.39 .29 

2 - —.1.3 3.07 .41 -.03 -.11 

3- -04 —.31 —.02 

4- -32 -.10 -.03 —.06 .09 

5- -31 .40 -.73 -.06 -.02 -.05 



6. 

7. —.33 —.83 .34 —.11 



26. 
27. 
28. 



1.33 





.79 


- .13 


3.07 


.41 


.04 


— .31 





.32 


— .10 


— .03 


.31 


.40 


— .73 


.13 


— .49 





- .33 


— .83 


.34 


.33 


.19 


.08 




1.28 


— 1.04 


.70 


.21 


1.20 




.14 


.15 




.42 


— .06 


- .08 


.32 


— .32 


- .08 




.93 


.34 


.08 


— .40 


.08 


— .19 


— .05 


.48 


1.01 


.34 




.67 


— .11 


.51 


.45 


.55 


- .77 


.66 


— .24 




— .69 


— .15 




— 1.26 


— .50 




— .36 


— .19 


1.36 


— .60 


— .64 


1.46 


.41 


.74 


- .03 


— .18 


.03 




— .38 


— .46 


.46 


.65 





T3 m 


M 


c ^ 


3 . 


rt O 




« ° 




8« 


<s a 
*3 ft 




X 




B W 


«a 


§ 


.14 


.63 


.11 


— .47 



.01 
— .10 —.08 



.79 
-•10 1.33 



11. 

12. 

J 3- --08 .32 -.32 -.03 -.12 -.12 -.26 

J 4- --08 .93 .04 -.08 -.08 -.46 

I 5- -34 .08 -.40 -.15 -.11 -.12 

16. 

*Z' " 48 !-01 -34 -.05 .07 -.06 -.55 

10. 

J 9. -51 .45 .55 —.01 .17 

20. 



2I - -.69 -.15 .02 -.06 



23. -.36 -.19 .02 -.10 .13 

24. 

25- -1.46 .41 .74 — .13 _ 2 



.41 



— .44 



— .01 .92 

IV ,, - 46 -07 .26 .14 .55 

•06 .26 



63 



TABLE XXVIII {Continued) 

Medians and deviations from medians for cost per pupil based on the average 
number of pupils in daily attendance, expressed as dollars and cents. Fifty-eight 
cities, for the school year 1902-03. 







-a . 


o 




a a 




ca o 








o 


-3 


w>.S2 

B > 


<u 


o 


y a 


s 




3 » 



Medians. 



28.50 



19.96 



18.10 



1.75 



1.87 



.82 



64 



29. 


1.00 


— .89 


.11 


- .89 


.19 






30. 


8.82 


6.30 


7.15 


— .74 


.49 


— .18 


.40 


31. 


— .60 


— 3.42 


— 2.35 


— .96 


— .03 






32. 


5.99 


.40 


.97 


— .46 


.06 


- .45 





33- 


— 3.65 





— 1.32 


1.43 


— .35 




- .47 


34. 


7.46 


4.75 


5.05 


— .19 


1.05 


— .80 


— .31 


35- 


— 3.98 


— 1.60 


- .23 


— 1.26 


— .27 


— .80 




36. 


3.44 


4.46 


.78 


3.79 


— .76 




— .43 


37. 


— 9.24 


— 5.31 


— 6.70 


1.50 


— .86 






38. 


— 4.94 


— 3.00 


— 2.89 





— .96 


— .77 


— .54 


39- 


3.51 


3.53 


1.84 


1.80 


— .20 




— .08 


40. 


6.29 


3.36 


3.80 


— .33 


— .49 


— .22 


.81 


41. 


— 3.85 


— 2.94 


— 2.11 


— .72 


— .74 






42. 





— .06 


— 2.63 


2.58 


— .38 


.61 


.48 


43- 


— 2.41 


— 2.04 


— 1.10 


— .83 


— .14 


— .33 


— .19 


44- 


— 2.32 


— 2.08 


— 1.41 


— .56 


— .29 


— .51 




45- 


.03 


— .18 


1.04 


— 1.11 


— .34 


.73 


— .29 


46. 


13.02 


10.28 


7.43 


2.96 


.04 


.37 


.08 


47. 


— 7.79 


— 10.81 


— 12.32 


1.62 


— .12 


— .13 




48. 


— 5.75 


— 4.44 


— 4.81 


.48 


— .51 


.15 


— .33 


49- 


— 6.30 


— 3.07 


— 3.90 


.94 


— .98 


.33 


— .42 


50. 
















5i. 


3.55 


5.54 


2.95 


2.70 


— .11 


— .23 


— .49 


52. 


— 2.11 


— 4.40 


— 4.29 





— .03 


— .03 


.28 


53- 


2.11 


4.27 


2.39 


1.99 


.24 . 






54. 


26.22 


6.51 


12.50 


4.12 


1.18 


1.29 


1.86 


55- 


— 8.00 


— 6.66 


— 5.49 


— 1.06 


— .78 






56. 


— .49 


— .07 


— 2.77 


2.81 


.48 


— .37 


— .12 


57- 


22.75 


18.33 


15.10 


3.34 


.55 


.52 


1.59 


58. 


— 6.99 


— 4.33 


— 4.55 


.33 


— .70 







64 



TABLE XXVIII (Continued) 

Medians and deviations from medians for cost per pupil based on the average 
number of pupils in daily attendance, expressed as dollars and cents. Fifty-eight 
cities, for the school year 1902-03. 



>. 


13 














+3 


c 










*3 tA 




3 






. 


8 


3 


OJ O 


3 . 

O VI 


o 
u 

1 


.M.8 

81: 

CQ ft 


"3 

B 
fa 


u 

'3 

0. 


3 

s 


"3 


v -Q 


<U V 

a <s 

*3 a 

r 


Medians. 


1.68 


1.63 


1.09 


.18 


.18 


.14 


.63 


29. 


.33 


- .12 






.17 


.05 




30. 





.22 


1.66 


.17 


— .11 


.29 




3i. 


— .12 


1.86 


.70 


.18 






.38 


32. 


— .67 


.62 


2.58 


.69 


.03 


.52 


.66 


33- 




— .39 


.08 








— .61 


34. 


— 1.33 


1.98 


- .57 


.44 


.05 




— .46 


35- 




— .24 


— .41 


— .03 


- .02 


.08 


.36 


36. 




.03 


— .37 


.24 


.01 


.14 


.94 


37- 




— .48 


— .64 











38. 


— 1.53 


— .33 


1.23 


— .12 





.16 


— .32 


39. 






.27 






1.23 




40. 


.37 




.12 


.01 






— .18 


41. 


- .28 


— .14 


— 1.05 


— .02 






.64 


42. 


.87 




— .29 


.15 


— .02 


— .03 




43- 


— .74 


.68 


— .44 





.04 


— .04 


.06 


44- 




.99 


.03 


— .02 





— 03 




4S- 


.22 


.55 


.89 


— .04 


- .13 


.01 


.05 


46. 


.23 





— .02 


.41 


.05 


.12 


— .59 


47. 




1.71 


1.64 


.25 


— .14 







48. 


— .40 


— .24 


— .75 


— .09 


— .13 


— .07 


.10 


49- 


— .31 


— .41 


— .80 


.03 


.02 


— .02 


— .57 


5o. 
















51. 


— .94 


.16 


— .50 


-.14 


.07 


.12 




52. 


.03 




2.86 




.08 


- .08 


— .16 


53- 






— .09 


.25 








54. 


2.93 


1.09 


1.21 


.08 


1.03 


.07 


.03 


55- 


.46 


- .49 


— .52 


.12 


.11 


.10 


1.38 


56. 


- .71 


— .41 


.41 





— .12 


— .02 


— .38 


57- 


1.89 


.38 


1.14 


.28 


.04 


.09 




58. 


- .29 


— .94 


.03 




- .15 


.29 





65 



TABLE XXIX 

Medians and deviations from medians for the per cent, which each item is of the 
total cost of maintenance and operation. Fifty-eight cities, for the school year 
1902-03. The figures refer to per cents and hundredths of per cents. 



rC CD 






Medians. 


71.15 


7.62 


63.44 


6.19 


2.91 


1.85 


5.98 


i. 


— 5.5 


— 4.73 


— .82 


.42 


2.24 


1.47 


2.48 


2. 


— 4.75 


— 4.31 


— .33 




1.55 


— .76 


— .44 


3- 


.99 


— 3.63 


4.71 


.88 






.16 


4- 


2.22 


3.07 


.24 


.92 


.48 


1.04 


.29 


5- 


4.80 


— 5.38 


10.27 


.43 






.06 


6. 


5.85 


— 3.47 


9.41 


— .93 






.57 


7. 


— 3.44 


.31 


— 3.66 


3.31 


— .41 


1.90 


.26 


8. 


.54 


5.97 


— 5.34 


— .11 


2.06 


- .37 


.46 


9- 


— 1.49 


— 4.83 


3.43 


1.30 






.76 


10. 


4.34 


— 5.93 


10.36 


- .28 


- .60 


1.37 


— .46 


11. 


— 9.89 


3.93 


— 13.73 


2.95 








12. 


2.17 


1.53 


.76 


1.39 


.57 






13. 


.05 


9.73 


— 9.59 


.69 


— .30 


.97 


— .56 


14. 


— 3.62 


— 2.58 


— .95 


.65 


.23 


.65 


— .35 


15. 


2.25 


— 5.46 


7.80 





1.07 


2.12 


1.96 


16. 


4.16 


.20 


4.05 


.22 





1.47 


.24 


17. 


— .52 


.20 


— .63 


.84 


.01 


1.22 





18. 


3.74 


— 3.14 


6.97 


.60 








19. 


— 5.86 


— 3.22 


— .55 


.62 


1.83 


.99 


1.59 


20. 


2.38 


— 5.49 


8.04 


— 1.04 


— .52 


- .30 


— 3.05 


21. 


10.54 


- 4.97 


5.66 


— .31 




— .31 




22. 


3.92 


— 6.44 


10.45 


— 2.01 




4.00 




23. 


— 12.96 


21.79 


— 34.66 


8.73 








24. 


2.81 


1.61 


1.29 


.08 


— 2.23 


— .43 


— 4.77 


25. 


6.67 


.28 


6.58 


— 1.25 


— 2.57 


— 1.52 


— 5.32 


26. 


1.82 


9.11 


— 7.20 


— .32 


— .88 


1.20 


— .90 


27. 


— 4.54 


2.80 


— 6.25 


1.07 


3.19 


.07 


1.89 


28. 


— 2.03 


— 3.71 


1.77 


1.04 






— 2.21 


29. 


— 6.64 


— 4.71 


— 1.84 


.80 






.84 



66 



TABLE XXIX {Continued) 

Medians and deviations from medians for the per cent, which each item is of the 
total cost of maintenance and operation. Fifty-eight cities, for the school year 
1902-03. The figures refer to per cents and hundredths of per cents. 



I. 


— 1.35 


1.35 


— .20 


.86 


2. 


10.89 


1.45 


— .10 


— .35 


3- 


— 1.20 


— .04 


— .08 




4- 


— 1.13 


— .61 


— .25 


.24 


5- 


.20 


— 2.93 


— .27 


— .10 


6. 


— 1.80 


.03 




.09 


7- 


— 2.20 


2.71 


— .30 




8. 


— .08 


— .15 


— .17 


— .35 


9- 


3.49 


— 3.79 






10. 


— 1.65 


1.38 






ii. 


.19 


.35 


— .36 




12. 


1.89 


— .41 






13- 


.68 


— 1.32 


— .13 


— .39 


14. 


— 2.33 


3.16 


.15 


— .25 


15. 


.82 


— 1.18 


— .52 


— .32 


16. 


— .85 


.10 






17. 


1.43 


.07 


- .27 


.09 


18. 


.51 


— 1.17 


- .03 




19. 


1.27 


1.76 




.63 


20. 


3.95 


— .25 






21. 


— 2.08 


— .09 


.17 




22. 


— 1.81 


2.68 






23. 


4.00 


3.11 


.88 




24. 


.80 


— .99 






25- 


.67 


3.00 




- .43 


26. 


— 1.47 


— .50 




- .07 


27. 


— 1.24 


— 1.57 


.31 


1.05 


28. 


1.64 




.16 




29. 


— .82 






.59 



tfa 



Medians. 5.91 3.92 .6 .6 .49 

— .44 



— .24 



— .20 
1.56 

— .16 



Jfl 


c 


% 


A 





tt 




W 


£ 




1. 


64 








.32 

2.95 

5.11 

.44 —.85 

.31 —1.04 

.44 

.29 — 1 . 42 



— .71 



37 



2.74 
.52 2.76 

1.29 
.13 



67 



TABLE XXIX {Continued) 

Medians and deviations from medians for the per cent, which each item is of the 
total cost of maintenance and operation. Fifty-eight cities, for the school year 
1902-03. The figures refer to per cents and hundredths of per cents. 



43 


•a . 






10 








o 

o 
>-. 
X> 

S 

3 


«« O 
2 > 


J 

V3 

■> 

u 
a> 

& 
C/3 


C 



a) 


c3 

03 

"m 

u 
O 
4» 

°E 


■a 

O 
O 

°? 

« 


10 

.8 

"a 
0. 

3 

03 


CQ D- 
■"CO 

0) 


2 








a) 

1-5 






H 


Medians. 


71.15 


7.62 


63.44 


6.19 


2.91 


1.85 


5.98 


30. 


— .05 


— 4.91 


4.95 


.13 


— 1.19 


.93 


— 1.49 


31- 


— 11.76 


— 4.78 


— 6.99 


.40 






— .37 


32. 


— 12.12 


-3.88 


— 8.15 


— .59 


— 1.84 


.02 


— 3.05 


33. 


11.17 


5.18 


4.08 


— .05 




-1.16 




34- 


— 2.37 


— 3.19 


1.01 


1.94 


— 2.85 


-.93 


-5.01 


35- 


4.05 


— 5.60 


9.74 


.36 


— 2.82 






36. 


5.20 


9.65 


— 4.46 


— 2.73 




— 1.20 




37. 


4.92 


9.27 


— 4.26 


— .83 








38. 


2.80 


— .21 


1.10 


— 2.35 


-2.69 


— 1.43 


— 5.35 


39. 


2.19 


3.47 


— 1.19 


— .99 




— .10 




40. 


— 3.92 


— 3.58 


— .25 


— 2.25 


— 1.17 


2.29 


— .11 


41. 


— 2.07 


— 4.42 


1.44 


— 1.60 






— .30 


42. 


— 1.46 


6.86 


— 9.23 


— .96 


2.13 


2.06 


2.96 


43- 


— 2.37 


— 3.99 


1.81 


1.46 


— 1.03 


— .16 


— 2.42 


44- 


— 2.85 


— 2.97 


.31 


— .14 


— 1.72 






45. 


-1.81 


— 5.36 


3.64 


— .85 


2.54 


- .64 


.67 


46. 


1.41 


3.68 


— 2.18 


— 1.63 


— .05 


- .13 


— 1.41 


47- 


— 26.94 


8.69 


— 35.54 


2.25 


.44 






48. 


— 4.97 


2.16 


— 5.04 


— .21 


1.38 


— .49 


— .34 


49. 


4.83 


4.48 


.44 


— 2.16 


2.28 


- .84 


.21 


50. 


— 1.30 


— .66 


— .55 


— 2.80 


1.60 


— .26 


.11 


51. 


8.39 


6.26 


2.22 


— .72 


— 1.04 


— 1.38 


— 3.65 


52. 


— 12.21 


— 1.02 


— 11.10 


.81 


.08 


1.63 


.48 


53- 


7.52 


4.17 


3.44 


.70 








54- 


— 4.42 


3.12 


— 7.45 


— .53 


.94 


2.72 


2.43 


55. 


— 6.30 


— 4.17 


— 1.94 


— .88 


2.69 






56. 


— .24 


' 8.67 


— 8.82 


2.18 


— 1.30 





— 2.53 


57. 


3.42 


2.30 


1.21 


— 1.47 


— .29 


2.50 


.98 


58. 


1.60 


2.03 


— .34 


— .78 






.50 



68 



TABLE XXIX (Continued) 

Medians and deviations from medians for the per cent, which each item is of the 
total cost of maintenance and operation. Fifty-eight cities, for the school year 
1902-03. The figures refer to per cents and hundredths of per cents. 



^ 










T3 w 




•4-3 








M* 


CM 


3 . 




u 
to 

a 


"3 


8 

0, 
Pi 


1 
1 


2 

0) 

u 

tt 

a 
a 
< 


a 

0)J3 


C w 

Is 


s 

2 










*3 


S 


Medians. 


5.91 


3.92 


.6 


.06 


.49 


1.64 


30. 


— .97 


3.43 


.32 


— .42 


.65 




31- 


6.59 


2.49 


.66 






1.98 


32. 


.62 


6.69 


1.89 


.02 




2.11 


33- 


— .92 


.79 








— 1.57 


34- 


4.09 


— 2.46 


1.09 


.05 




-1.16 


35- 


— .22 


— 1.12 


— .04 


.07 


.38 


.24 


36. 


— .74 


— 1.65 


.68 


— .01 


.35 


3.25 


37- 


.08 


— 1.58 








1.62 


38. 




5.90 


-.39 


.18 


.74 


— .33 


39- 




.32 






3.85 




40. 


2.81 


— .45 


-.09 






-.36 


41. 


.16 


— 3.74 









.35 


42. 


— .32 


— 1.12 


.52 


- .04 


— .14 




43- 


2.95 


— 1.42 


.07 


.25 


.16 


1.17 


44- 


4.09 


.38 


- .02 


.09 


— .09 




45- 


-3.13 


3.02 


— .16 


- .43 


.01 





46. 


— 2.00 


— 1.34 


.79 


— .05 


.11 


-1.54 


47. 


10.18 


9.28 


1.44 ' 


— .43. 


.13 




48. 


.25 


— 2.43 


- .23 


— .38 


- .22 


1.57 


49- 


— .45 


— 2.59 


.30 


.30 





— 1.36 


50. 


.35 


2.97 


1.51 








51. 


- .33 


— 2.06 


- .48 


.18 


.29 




52. 




11.03 




.39 


- .31 


.15 


53- 




— .59 


.78 








54- 


— .94 


.29 


— .14 


1.62 


.12 


— .44 


55- 


— .32 


— 1.12 


.80 


.80 


— .63 




56. 


— 1.54 


1.42 





— .40 


— .09 


- .76 


57- 


— 1.99 


.43 


.27 


— .17 


— .06 




58. 


— 1.67 


1.26 




- .47 


1.45 





69 



TABLE XXX 

Medians and deviations from medians for cost per pupil based on the average 
number of pupils in daily attendance, expressed as dollars and cents. Thirty cities, 
or the school year 1903-04. The figures refer to dollars and tenths of dollars. 



s? 



oft 



iians. 


29.08 


21.19 


18.90 


1.74 


1.91 


1.61 


1.67 


1.12 


5- 


5.0 


4.3 


5.9 


— 1.0 


.4 


— .3 


1.1 


— .7 


6. 


— 4.8 


— 5.4 


— 4.2 


— .6 


— .3 





.2 


1.1 


8. 


3.3 


2.5 


3.7 


2.5 





.2 


.1 





13- 


5.1 


4.3 


2.0 


3.4 





.2 


.6 


— .3 


14. 


— .3 


— 1.2 


— .3 


— .4 


.4 







.2 


15. 


— 4.4 


— 2.5 


— 4.2 


2.1 


— .4 


— .2 


— .2 


— .4 


16. 


— .9 


.1 


.3 


.4 





— .1 


.3 


— .3 


20. 


— 6.0 


— 3.8 


— 2.2 


— 1.1 


— .6 


.4 


.3 


— .6 


27. 


— 2.8 


— 3.0 


— 4.3 


1.9 


.1 





— 1.1 


— .1 


28. 


.3 


— .6 


.6 


— .6 


.2 


— .7 






29. 


— 4.4 


— 5.6 


— 1.1 


— 1.0 


.2 


.4 


— .2 


.1 


30. 


9.6 


5.8 


7.1 


— .8 


.5 







2.4 


3i. 


1.8 





1.5 


— .9 


.1 




.4 


1.7 


32. 


— 1.1 


— 1.1 


— 3.4 


2.9 


.1 


— .8 





— .1 


34- 


2.5 


.4 


1.3 


— .4 


2.5 




— .5 


.5 


35- 


.8 


2.2 


2.8 


— .1 


— .5 


— 1.5 


.3 


.3 


36. 


2.6 


5.3 


2.3 


3.6 


— .7 




.4 


— 1.2 


37- 


— 8.4 


-5.4 


— 6.7 


1.9 


— .8 







— .2 


39- 


— .3 


.3 


— 1.1 


1.9 


— .3 









40. 


2.1 


.2 


— 3.2 


3.9 


— .8 


.4 




.1 


41. 


-3.7 


— 3.2 


— 4.5 


1.8 


— .8 


- .2 


.2 


— .2 


42. 





— .9 


— 3.2 


2.9 


— .4 


1.1 


— .3 


— .1 


43- 


1.4 


1.7 


3.2 


— .8 





— .7 


— .7 


— .2 


45- 








.5 


.1 


— .2 





— .5 


.4 


48. 


— 1.4 


— 1.5 


— 3.2 


2.3 


— .4 


.4 


— .3 


— .1 


52. 


— .1 


— 2.1 


— 1.5 


— .1 


.4 


.5 


— .6 


. 3 


54- 


19.1 


9.8 


6.3 


4.0 


.7 


7.1 




.2 


55- 


— 11.2 


— 8.0 


— 6.8 


— .6 


— .9 


— .5 


— .8 


— .7 


56. 


1.9 


1.0 


2.0 


— .4 


.7 


— .3 


— .3 





57. 


23.4 


17.9 


15.2 


.33 


1.0 


1.6 


.4 


1.1 



70 



TABLE XXXI 

Medians and deviations from medians for the per cent, which each item is of the 
total cost of maintenance and operation. Thirty cities, for the year 1903-04. The 
figures refer to per cents and tenths of per cents. 



.5 > 



I 



m to 

o 0< 

CO p. 

. n 



Medians. 71.7 64.2 6.3 6.1 5.5 5.8 3.8 



5- 


3.2 


8.5 


— 4.1 


6 


— 1.7 


2.3 


— 2.8 


6. 


— 6.5 


— 3.7 


— 1.6 


.5 


1.2 


2.0 


5.2 


8. 


1.6 


5.8 


— 3.0 


— .4 


.1 


— .3 


— .3 


13- 


2.8 


— 3.3 


7.1 


— .5 


— .2 


.8 


— 1.4 


14. 


— 2.4 


.2 


— 1.4 


1.8 


.1 




.9 


15. 


4.4 


— 3.7 


9.3 


.3 








— 1.0 


16. 


4.2 


4.1 


1.1 


.6 


— .5 


1.3 


— .9 


20. 


4.0 


8.8 


— 3.3 


— .6 


— .1 


1.6 


— 1.4 


27. 


— 1.9 


— 8.6 


7.7 


1.8 


.7 


— 3.6 


1.1 


28. 


— 1.4 


2.2 


— 2.5 


1.0 


— 2.5 







29. 


— 4.7 


— .3 


— 3.2 


2.3 




.3 


1.3 


30. 


— 1.7 


3.1 


— 3.7 


.2 




— 1.5 


5.5 


3i. 


— 3.1 


1.7 


-3.7 


.5 




4.3 


5.3 


32. 





— 8.9 


10.1 


1.2 


-2.7 


.2 


— .2 


34- 


— 3.1 


— .1 


— 1.9 


4.6 




— 2.2 


1.3 


35. 


6.6 


8.4 


— .8 


— 1.3 


-5.0 


.5 


1.1 


36. 


13.7 


4.0 


10.8 


— 2.4 




.7 


— 3.7 


37- 


4.7 


— 5.4 


11.3 


— .8 




2.1 


.8 


39. 


2.9 


— 2.2 


6.4 


— .6 






.2 


40. 


— 2.6 


— 13.3 


11.9 


— 2.4 


1.0 







41. 


— .7 


— 7.4 


7.8 


— 1.6 





1.6 


— .2 


42. 


— 1.7 


— 10.1 


9.7 


— .9 


3.7 


— 1.0 


— .4 


43- 


3.6 


8.0 


— 3.2 


.2 


— 2.5 


— 2.7 


— .9 


45. 


1.5 


2.6 





— .4 





— 1.7 


1.3 


48. 


— .7 


— 7.7 


8.1 


- .7 


1.5 


— .7 


.1 


52. 


— 5.7 


— 4.0 


— .7 


1.8 


2.7 


— 2.0 


.9 


54- 


— 5.5 


— 12.1 


5.7 


— .8 


12.5 





— 1.0 


55. 


1.9 


3.1 





— .2 


.5 


— .8 


— 2.5 


56 





3.0 


— 1.9 


2.2 


— 1.3 


— 1.4 


— .2 


57 


2.9 


.7 


3.3 


— .5 




— 1.8 


.4 



71 



TABLE XXXII 

Medians and deviations from medians for average cost per pupil for two years 
based on the average number of pupils in daily attendance. The figures refer to 
dollars and tenths of dollars. Thirty cities, reporting for two school years, 1902-03 
and 1903-04. 



■a . 

<£ O 



s 






H 


3 




-co 




« 


3 




H w 




w 


'3 









2 










03 


H 






Medians. 


28.8 


20.5 


18.3 


2.2 


1.9 


1.6 


1.7 


1.1 


5- 


5.9 


4.9 


6.3 


-1.4 


.4 





.7 


— .7 


6. 


— 2.8 


— 1.9 


— .9 


-1.0 


- .3 


.1 


— .2 


.6 


8. 


3.0 


2.5 


2.0 


.5 





.3 


.1 


.1 


13- 


3.1 


2.8 


.1 


2.7 


.1 


.1 


.4 


— .3 


14. 





— .8 


— .1 


— .8 


.2 





.8 


.6 


IS- 


— 3.3 


— 1.9 


— 1.9 





- .3 





— .1 


— .4 


16. 


— .4 


.9 


.9 














— .1 


20. 


— 5.7 


— 3.2 


— 1.7 


-1.6 


— .6 


— .6 


.4 


— .4 


27. 


— 2.7 


— 2.4 


— 3.5 


1.1 


.1 





- .8 


— .2 


28. 


1.0 


.3 


1.3 


— 1.0 


.3 


— .6 






29. 


— 1.7 


-2.7 


— 1.3 


— 1.4 


.2 


.3 


— .2 


.2 


30. 


9.2 


6.2 


7.3 


— 1.2 


.5 







2.1 


31. 


.6 


1.6 


— .2 


— 1.4 


.1 




1.6 


1.2 


32. 


2.4 


— .2 


— 1.0 


.8 


.1 


- .7 


.3 


1.3 


34- 


4.9 


4.7 


3.4 


— .7 


1.3 




.7 





35- 


— 1.6 


.4 


1.5 


— 1.1 


— .3 




— .1 





36. 


3.0 


5.0 


1.7 


3.2 


— .7 




.1 


— .7 


37- 


— 8.8 


— 5.3 


— 6.5 


1.3 


— .8 




— .3 


— .4 


39- 


1.6 


2.0 


.6 


1.4 


— .2 




.3 


.2 


40. 


4.2 


1.9 


.5 


1.3 


- .6 


.4 


.8 


.1 


41. 


— 3.8 


-3.0 


— 3.1 


.1 


— .7 


— .2 





— .6 


42. 





— 3.4 


— 2.7 


2.3 


— .4 


1.0 


— .2 


— .2 


43. 


— .5 





1.2 


— 1.2 





— .7 





— .3 


45- 








1.0 


— .9 


— .3 


.1 


— .5 


.6 


48. 


-3.5 


— 2.9 


-3.8 


.9 


— .4 





— .2 


— .4 


52- 


— 1.1 


— 3.1 


— 2.7 


— .5 


.2 


.3 


— .6 


1.6 


54. 


22.7 


13.3 


9.6 


3.6 


1.0 


4.5 


.6 


— .8 


55- 


-7.6 


— 7.2 


— 6.0 


— 1.3 


- .8 


— .5 


— .7 


— .7 


56. 


.7 


.6 


.2 


.8 


.6 


— .5 


— .3 


.2 


57. 


23.1 


18.2 


15!3 


2.9 


.8 


1.7 


.3 


1.1 



72 



TABLE XXXIII 

Medians and deviations from medians for per cent, of total which each item is, 
based on average for two years. Thirty cities, reporting for the school years 1902-03 
and 1903-04. The figures refer to per cents and tenths of per cents. 



S3 %£ 

& "is 

§ £c0 



rt o 60 O •— to w 

aca ■§ 3 & -g| 






Medians. 70.7 63.1 8.0 6.1 5.7 5.9 3.5 



5- 


4.7 


10.1 


-5.8 


.6 


— .5 


1.2 


— 2.6 


6. 


.3 


3.6 


-3.6 


— .1 


.9 


.1 


3.0 


8. 


1.8 


.9 


.4 


— .1 


.3 


— .2 


.1 


13. 


2.1 


— 3.7 


7.4 


.2 


— .4 


.7 


— 1.0 


14. 


— 2.3 


.3 


— 3.1 


1.3 


— .1 


2.2 


2.4 


IS- 


4.0 


2.7 


.9 


.2 


1.0 


.3 


-.7 


16. 


4.8 


4.8 


— .4 


.5 


— .1 


.2 





20. 


3.9 


9.1 


— 5.4 


— .8 


— 1.3 


2.7 


— .5 


27. 


— 2.6 


— 7.2 


4.6 


1.5 


1.3 


— 2.4 


.1 


28. 


— 1.0 


2.7 


— 4.1 


1.0 


— 2.3 






29. 


— 5.0 


— .3 


— 5.0 


1.6 


1.2 


- .3 


— 1.4 


30. 


— .2 


4.7 


— 5.4 


.2 




— 1.3 


4.8 


31. 


-6.7 


— 1.9 


— 5.3 


.5 




5.3 


4.3 


32. 


— 5.3 


— 8.8 


2.1 


.3 


-2.9 


.4 


3.6 


34- 


— 2.1 


1.1 


— 3.6 


3.3 




.7 


— .2 


35- 


6.0 


9.8 


— 4.2 


- .4 


-5.4 





.3 


36. 


10.1 


— -5 


9.2 


— 2.5 


— 5.0 


— .1 


— 2.3 


37- 


5.5 


— 3.9 


9.2 


— .9 




1.0 


— .1 


39- 


3.2 


— 1.0 


3.9 


- .7 




.6 


.6 


40. 


— 2.6 


— 6.1 


3.1 


-2.3 


.4 


1.4 


.1 


41. 


— .7 


— 2.2 


1.1 


— 1.6 


— .1 


.8 


-1.7 


42. 


— .9 


— 9.0 


7.7 


— .9 


3.4 


— .8 


— .4 


43- 


1.3 


5.6 


— 4.7 


.3 


— 2.4 





— .8 


45- 


.5 


3.8 


— 3.7 


— .6 


.4 


— 2.0 


2.4 


48. 


— 2.2 


-5.7 


4.1 


— .4 


.6 


— .3 


— .8 


52- 


-8.3 


— 6.9 


— 1.9 


.3 


1.6 


-2.3 


6.3 


54. 


— 5.3 


— 9.1 


3.3 


— .7 


7.5 


— 1.1 





55. 


— 1.5 


1.3 


— 3.2 


— .5 


.1 


— .8 


— 1.5 


56. 


.5 


— 2.2 


2.3 


2.2 


— 1.9 


— 1.5 


.9 


57. 


3.8 


1.7 


1.7 


-1.0 




— 2.0 


.7 



73 



74 City School Expenditures 

There are thirty-six cases in which a positive deviation for 
one item is accompanied by a negative deviation for the other, 
and only twenty -one cases where like deviations occur for both 
items. One might seem justified in declaring that a negative 
relationship exists. It is not possible from the table to tell how 
large this negative relationship is, much less to express it in a 
single significant figure. It is just here that the great value of 
the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation x comes in. 

In the next set of tables (see Tables XXXIV and XXXV) 
the deviations are given as a per cent, of the median. The 
gross deviations from the median are significant, especially when 
deviations for different items are compared with each other as 
indicated above, but the range of variability is better indicated, 
I believe, by giving the per cent, of the median or other single 
figure indicating a central tendency. For example, the median 
for janitors' salaries (first years' figures, per cent, basis) is 
6.2 %, and for salaries for teaching and supervision it is 71.2 %. 
Now, a deviation of .6 % in the case of janitors' salaries seems 
insignificant when compared with a deviation of 7.1 % for 
teaching and supervision — the one is almost twelve times the 
other ; but when we remember that each one represents a devia- 
tion equivalent to about 10 % of the median, we are nearer 
recognizing their real significance, I believe, than when we con- 
sider them merely in gross. Even this method of comparison 
is, however, misleading, since it is absolutely impossible for the 
items "teaching and supervision" or "teaching" to vary as 
much as 100 % above or below the median when the per cent, 
of the total is taken as the basis of comparison, because the 
median for teaching and supervision amounts to 70.7 %, and 
for teaching to 63.1 % of the total. On the cost per pupil basis, 
while it is not impossible to have a variation equal to 1 00 % of 
the median, or greater, for these larger items, yet, even if such 
variations occur, they are not comparable to variations which 
give the same per cent, of the median where this item represents 
a very much smaller part of the total expenditure. 2 Even after 

1 The reader not versed in statistical methods is referred to Thorn- 
dike's Mental and Social Measurements (The Science Press, 1904), where he 
will find a most satisfactory treatment of this and other statistical methods. 

2 For discussion of this point, see Thorndike, Mental and Social 
Measurements, pp. 102 and 103 



City School Expenditures 75 

these qualifications (which show us that we must be on our 
guard in comparing variabilities for different items) have been 
made, I am still of the opinion that these tables are very help- 
ful in giving us a correct idea of the variability of all items, as 
well as permitting us to compare the variability of items whose 
medians represent about the same proportion of the total or 
nearly the same cost per pupil. 

In Table XXXIV the items which apparently show the least 
variability are "total," "teaching and supervision," and " teach- 
ing." As noted above, any deviation above the median is pos- 
sible; i. e., the deviation above the median may be 100 % or 
more of the median. It is striking to note that the deviations 
expressed as per cents of the median for the total amount spent 
range from — 30.6 % to + 80.2 %; while for teaching and 
supervision the range is from —35.1 % to + 88.8 %. Appar- 
ently the amount paid per child for teaching and supervision is 
even more variable than the total amount of money spent per 
child. Possibly this is what we might have expected when we 
remember that teachers of some sort can^be had for almost any 
salary, while some of the other commodities or utilities which 
must be had to run the school have a much more definite market 
value. The great range for supervision from — 73-7% to 
+ 166 % is at least partially to be accounted for, I believe, by 
the fact that no very clear distinction exists between teachers 
and supervisors or principals in some systems. Those who 
should have been reported as teachers are, doubtless, in some 
instances reported as supervisors, and vice versa. 

The items "janitors' salaries," "text-books and supplies," 
and "fuel" furnish the best opportunity for comparison of 
variability. The medians for these items are respectively $1.90, 
$1.60, and $1.70. The range of deviations for janitors' salaries 
is from — 42.8 % to + 53.5 % of the median; for text-books 
and supplies, from — 42. 7 % to +274%; and for fuel, from 

— 40.9 % to 93.6 %. That the smallest proportional plus varia- 
tion should be found in the item of janitors' salaries, and the 
largest for the item of text-books and supplies seems to me to 
indicate that, in some cities at least, more money means more 
of those things which make possible efficient work in the schools. 

The deviations for the item of repairs show a range of from 

— 74-8 % to + 196.6 % of the median. There would probably 



TABLE XXXIV 

Deviations from the medians; average cost per pupil for two years (see Table 
XXXII), reduced to per cents of the medians. The figures refer to per cents and 
tenths of per cents. 



39 
40 



41 

42 
43 

45 



52 
54 

55 



go, 



£W 



Medians. 28.8 20.5 18.3 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.1 

5 20.5 23.9 34.4 —64.5 21.4 40.9 —65.5 

6 —9.7 —9.3 —4.9 —46.1 —16.1 6.1 —11.7 56.1 
8. 10.4 12.2 10.9 23.1 18.3 5.8 9.4 

1* 10.8 13.7 .6 124.0 5.4 6.1 23.4 —28.1 

14 —3.9 —.6 —36.9 10.7 46.8 56.1 



i<. —11.5 —9.3 —10.4 —16.1 —5.8 —37.4 

l6 —1.4 4.4 4.9 —9.4 

20 —19.8 —15.6 —9.3 —73.7 —32.1 —36.6 23.4 —37.4 

27 _9.4 —11.7 —19.1 50.7 5.4 —46.8 —18.7 

28. 3.5 1.5 7.1 —46.1 16.1 —36.6 

2Q _ 5 .9 -13.2 —7.1 —64.5 10.7 18.3 —11.7 18.7 

00 32.0 30.2 39.9 —55.3 26.7 196.6 

3i 2.1 7.8 —1.1 —64.5 5.4 93.6 112.2 

32' 8.3 —1.0 —5.5 36.9 5.4 —42.7 17.6 121.6 

34 . 17.0 22.9 18.6 —32.3 69.5 40.9 

35 —5.6 1.9 8.2 —50.7 —16.1 —5.8 

36 10.4 24.4 9.3 148.0 —37.4 5.8 —65.5 
„' —30.6 —25.9 —35.5 59.9 —42.8 —17.6 —37.4 

5.6 9.8 3.3 64.5 —10.7 17.6 18.7 

14.6 9.3 2.7 59.9 —32.1 24.4 46.8 9.4 



13.2 —14.6 —17.0 4.6 —37.4 —12.2 —56.1 

—16.6 —14.8 106.0 —21.4 61.0 —11.7 —18.7 

.7 6.6 —55.3 —42.7 —28.1 

5.5 —41.5 —16.1 6.1 —29.2 56.1 



48. —12.2 —14.1 —20.8 41.5 —21.4 —11.7 —37.4 

— 3.8 —15.2 —14.8 23.1 10.7 18.3 —35.1 149.0 

78.8 64.9 52.5 166.0 53.5 274.3 35.1 —74.8 

— 26.4 —35.1 —33.3 —59.9 —42.8 —30.5 —40.9 —65.5 

eg" 2.4 2.9 1.1 36.9 32.1 —30.5 —17.6 18.7 

57' 80.2 8S.8 83.6 134.0 42.8 104.0 17.6 102.8 



76 



TABLE XXXV 

Deviations from the medians; average for two years of per cent, of total which 
each item is (see Table XXXIII), reduced to per cents of the medians. The figures 
refer to per cents and tenths of per cents. 



■6 
"8 

u 

<u 

1 


•d . 

a a 

d 
I- 

2 P. 


bi 

a 



R 

.2 
f 

u 

0) 
Pi 
3 
02 


xA 

<o 
'u 

"01 
u 



1 

1—1 


■d 
c 
a 

01 ?! 


"3 


u 

a 


Medians. 


70.7 


63.1 


8.0 


6.1 


5.7 


5.9 


3.5 


5- 


6.6 


16.1 


— 72.5 


9.8 


-8.8 


20.3 


— 74.3 


6. 


.4 


5.7 


— 45.0 


— 1.6 


15.8 


1.7 


85.8 


8. 


2.5 


1.4 


5.0 


— 1.6 


5.3 


— 3.4 


2.9 


13- 


3.0 


— 5.9 


92.5 


3.3 


— 7.0 


11.8 


— 28.6 


14. 


— 3.2 


.5 


— 38.8 


21.4 


— 1.8 


37.3 


68.6 


15. 


5.7 


4.3 


11.2 


3.3 


17.6 


5.1 


— 20.1 


16. 


6.8 


7.6 


— 5.0 


8.2 


— 1.8 


3.4 





20. 


5.5 


14.4 


— 67.7 


— 13.2 


— 22.8 


45.8 


-14:3 


27. 


— 3.7 


— 11.4 


57.7 


24.6 


22.8 


— 40.7 


2.9 


28. 


— 1.4 


4.3 


— 51.2 


16.4 


— 40.4 






29. 


— 7.1 


— .5 


— 62.5 


26.3 


21.1 


— 5.1 


— 40.1 


30. 


— .3 


7.4 


— 67.7 


3.3 




— 22.0 


137.2 


3i. 


— 9.5 


— 3.0 


— 66.2 


8.2 




89.8 


122.7 


32. 


— 6.5 


— 13.9 


26.2 


4.9 


— 50.9 


6.8 


102.8 


34- 


— 3.0 


1.7 


— 45.0 


54.1 




11.9 


— 5.7 


35- 


8.5 


15.5 


— 52.5 


— 6.6 


— 94.8 





8.6 


36. 


14.3 


— .8 


115.0 


— 41.0 


-87.8 


-1.7 


— 65.7 


37- 


7.8 


— 6.2 


115.0 


— 14.8 




17.0 


— 2.9 


39- 


4.5 


— 1.6 


48.7 


— 11.5 




10.2 


17.2 


40. 


-3.7 


-9.7 


38.8 


— 37.7 


7.0 


23.7 


2.9 


41. 


— .9 


— 3.5 


13.7 


— 26.2 


— 1.8 


13.6 


— 48.6 


42. 


— 1.3 


— 14.3 


96.2 


— 14.8 


59.7 


— 13.6 


— 11.5 


43- 


1.8 


8.9 


— 58.7 


4.9 


— 42.2 





— 22.9 


45. 


.7 


6.0 


— 46.2 


— 9.9 


7.0 


— 33.9 


68.6 


48. 


— 3.1 


— 9.0 


51.2 


-6.6 


10.6 


— 5.1 


— 22.9 


52. 


— 11.7 


— 10.9 


-23.7 


4.9 


28.1 


— 39.0 


179.8 


54- 


— 7.5 


— 14.4 


41.2 


— 11.5 


132.6 


— 18.8 





55- 


— 2.1 


2.1 


— 40.0 


— 8.2 


1.8 


— 13.6 


— 42.9 


56. 


.7 


— 3.5 


28.7 


36.1 


— 33.3 


— 25.4 


25.7 


57- 


5.4 


2.7 


21.2 


— 16.4 




— 33.9 


20.1 



77 



7 8 City School Expenditures 

be less variability in this item if we had the figures for a period 
of five or ten years, instead of only two years' figures. 

Table XXXV, which gives the deviations from the medians 
on the per cent, basis (the average for two years, see Table 
XXXIII) reduced to per cent, of the median, offers another 
interesting view of the variability. When we ask how a city 
spends its money regardless of the amount of money which it 
has to spend, we are dealing with the problem which every 
administrator of schools must face. From a median of 70.7 % 
spent for teaching and supervision, we find that the variations 
range from — 11. 7 % to + 14.3 % of that proportion, while the 
deviations for teaching alone amount to from — 14.4% to 
+ 16. 1 %. In these, and in the other items given in this table, 
we find a smaller range than is found for the same items on the 
cost per pupil basis. This means, of course, that amount of 
money per pupil available for maintenance and operation of 
schools varies much more than does the proportional distribu- 
tion of that money. 

On the basis used in this table, as well as on the cost per 
pupil basis, we find that the range above the median is less for 
janitors' salaries than for fuel or text-books and supplies — that 
of the three, text-books and supplies show the greatest range. 
The range for janitors' salaries is from — 41 % to + 54.1 % of 
the median; for fuel, from —40.7 % to + 89.8 %; for text- 
books and supplies, from —94-8 % to + 131.6 %. In a later 
section, where the relationship of these items to the total is 
worked out exactly, the item of text-books and supplies is 
shown to be more closely correlated with the total amount 
spent than are either of the other items. 

As a conclusion to the discussion of variability, it may not 
be out of place to suggest certain limits within which, in my 
judgment, the cost per pupil or per cent, of total amount spent 
for each item should lie. Allowing for some difference in the 
cost of living, it seems to me that the superintendent of schools 
in any city spending less than $30 per pupil for the maintenance 
and operation of schools, should investigate in order to find out 
whether the schools are getting their just proportion of the 
money spent by the city. This amount seems small when com- 
pared with the rates of tuition charged to day pupils in our best 
private schools, where the tuition even in the lower grades is 



City School Expenditures 79 

commonly $100 to $200 per year. It is difficult to place the 
upper limit for the total cost per pupil, except by saying that 
the expenditure should be increased to such an extent that the 
public schools shall be able to do as efficient work as our best 
private schools. When we compare the meagre provision which 
was made for public education fifty years ago with an expendi- 
ture of $54 per pupil reported by one of the cities with which 
this study deals, we are inclined to feel hopeful for the future. 
If the superintendent of schools, or other school officer, has seen 
to it that as much money as possible is provided for the public 
schools, his next problem is to apportion the money secured 
among the several items of the budget to the best possible ad- 
vantage. From the data given above, it is my judgment that 
an ideal budget would give to each of the principal items not 
less than the first proportion mentioned in the table below, nor 
more than that indicated by the last figure, except that cities 
spending an unusually large amount per pupil should, I believe, 
spend a relatively larger proportion for teaching and super- 
vision, and for text-books and supplies; while the proportion 
spent for fuel, repairs, and janitors' salaries should increase 
much more slowly. 

TABLE XXXVI 

% of Total. % of Total. 
Teaching and Supervision from 70 % to 75 % 



Supervision alone 


' 7% ' 


' 10% 


Teaching alone 


'60% ' 


' 68% 


Janitors' Salaries 


' 5% ' 


' 7% 


Text-Books and Supplies ' 


' 4% ' 


' 6% 


Fuel 


' 5% ' 


' 7% 


Repairs 


' 3% ' 


' 5% 



Teaching and supervision are the most important factors in 
an effective school system and should, in my opinion, receive a 
greater rather than a smaller proportion than that usually given. 
The limits given for supervision are high rather than low, I 
think. There is a tendency to-day, I believe, to differentiate 
the work of the supervisor of instruction from that of the class 
teacher on the one hand, and, on the other, from the mere 
routine work of the assistant who keeps the office records. This 
means that a competent supervising principal can do the work 
of supervision formerly done by five or six men ; and that even 
though he receives a larger salary than was paid any one of 
the five or six before, the proportion paid for supervision, 



80 City School Expenditures 

even when office clerks' salaries are included, has diminished. 
Janitors' salaries, fuel, and repairs are fixed charges upon the 
school revenue, which should not much increase in proportion 
to the amount per pupil available for school purposes. 

The best way to decide just what is the best way to appor- 
tion the money among the various items of the budget would 
be to find out which school system is doing the best work, by 
testing the pupils in the system, and then to adopt as the ideal 
apportionment that distribution of moneys which is found in 
the most efficient school systems. I hope that some one will 
be able to make such tests within the next year for the cities 
from which the data were secured for this study. 

, ^p RELATIONSHIPS 

In the discussion of variability given above, it was suggested 
that a more careful study of the data given would enable us to 
measure exactly the relationships which exist among the various 
items of the budget. Such questions of relationship naturally 
suggest themselves when one considers the distribution of money 
for different purposes. Do cities which spend a large total 
amount per pupil s^end a correspondingly large amount for 
teaching? As the amount per pupil increases, is more money 
spent for every purpose, or are there certain items of expense 
which do not increase in proportion to the increased cost per 
pupil? What is the relation between a large amount of money 
spent for supervision and the amount spent for text-books and 
supplies, fuel, repairs, etc.? If a larger proportion than usual of 
the money available for school purposes is spent for janitors' 
salaries, what effect may we expect this to have upon teachers' 
salaries? These and many other similar questions can be an- 
swered by determining the relationships which exist among the 
various items of the budget, on both the cost per pupil and per 
cent, of total bases. 

From the tables of deviations of medians given above (Tables 
XXVIII to XXXIII), the fact that relationships exist might, 
perhaps, be inferred, but no one could from such large tables 
of details infer the particular relationships which do actually 
exist. It is just here that the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation 
is invaluable. The following explanations, adapted from 
Thorndike's Educational Psychology (page 26), will explain the 



City School Expenditures 81 

meaning of the coefficient of correlation to the reader not already 
familiar with its use. 

"The coefficient of correlation is a simple figure so calcu- 
lated from the several records as to give the degree of relation- 
ship between any two items which will best account for all the 
separate cases in the group. In other words, it expresses the 
degree of relationship from which the actual cases might have 
arisen with least improbability. It has possible values from 
+ ioo per cent, through o to — ioo per cent." 

A coefficient of correlation of + ioo % between two items 
of the budget (say teachers' salaries and text-books) on the basis 
of the cost per pupil would indicate that the city which spent 
the most for teachers' salaries, spent the most for text-books; 
that the city which spent the least for teachers' salaries, spent 
the least for text-books ; that if the cities were ranged in order 
according to the amount spent for teachers' salaries, and then 
in order according to the amount spent for text-books, the two 
rankings would be identical ; that the position of any city with 
reference to the others for one item will be the same for the 
other item (both being reduced to terms of the variabilities of 
the cost per pupil as units to allow comparison). 

A coefficient of — ioo % would, per contra, mean that the 
city which spent most for one item would spend the smallest 
amount for the other, that any degree above the average or 
median in the one would be accompanied by the same degree 
below the average or median for the other, and vice versa. A 
coefficient of + 62 % would mean that (comparison being ren- 
dered fair here, as always, by reduction to the variabilities as 
units) any given station for one item would, on the whole, imply 
62 hundredths of that station for the other. A coefficient of 
— 62 % would, of course, mean that any position above the 
average for the one item would, on the whole, involve a position 
below the average for the other item equal to 62 hundredths 
of the amount the first was above the average. 

Table XXXVII gives the coefficients which were found on 
the cost per pupil basis. The first column gives the corrected 
coefficient 1 as determined from the coefficients found when the 

1 This correction is made by using the Spearman formulae for the 
correction of the Pearson Coefficient. See American Journal of Psychol- 
ogy for January, 1904. 



TABLE XXXVII 

Pearson Coefficients of Correlation calculated on the cost per 

pupil BASIS. 

WSs £ 5 * S-13 g 2-2 >,- g >,.+» fe 2 °o 



SSO a 0£g,0 OOM Oijia 

U yB £ 






Total Cost per Pupil correlated 
with Teaching and Super- 
vision +1.015 1 + .97 +.96 +.99 +.88 

Total Cost per Pupil correlated 

with Janitors' Salaries + .716 +.66 +.70 +.56 +.73 

Total Cost per Pupil correlated 
with Text-Books and Sup- 
plies + .955 +.85 +.85 +.67 +.64 

Total Cost per Pupil correlated 

with Fuel...!... + .522 2 +.45 +.50 +.34 +.40 

Total Cost per Pupil correlated 

with Repairs + .246 +.24 +.47 +.56 +.35 

Teaching and Supervision 
correlated with Janitors' 
Salaries + .746 +.64 +.63 +.44 +.53 

Teaching correlated with Text- 
Books and Supplies + .737 +.63 +.76 +.35 +.65 

Supervision correlated with 

Text : Books and Supplies. .. + .869 +.69 +.57 +.51 +.27 

Supervision correlated with 

Repairs - .128 -.14 +.18 -.09 +.07 

Supervision correlated with 

Teaching + .366 +.27 +.31 +.05 +.12 

Supervision correlated with 

Fuel + .11 +.06 +.02 +.04 +.01 

Janitors' Salaries correlated 

withFuel + .531 +.30 +.61 -.08 +.45 

Janitors' Salaries correlated 

with Repairs + .219 +.32 +.32 +.39 +.24 

Repairs correlated with Fuel . . + . 147 + . 12 + . 21 - . 001 + . 20 



1 That this coefficient as corrected gives over ioo % is due to the fact 
that the third decimal place is lacking in the coefficients from which the 
correction was made. 

2 The item "fuel" as reported for the two years is less definite than 
most of the other items, because fuel bought, or at least fuel paid for, 
one year is often used the next year; consequently, only the second 
method given by Spearman for the correction of the Pearson coefficient 
is used. This method is based on the fact that an increase in the num- 
ber of measures of each of the facts originally measured increases its 
accuracy. 



82 



City School Expenditures 83 

first year's figures alone were used, when the second year's 
figures alone were used, and when the average for the two years 
was used (see columns 3,4, and 2). The second column gives 
the coefficients derived from the average of two years' figures; 
the third, the coefficients derived from the first year's figures 
from cities reporting two years; the fourth, the coefficients de- 
rived from the second year's figures; and the fifth, the co- 
efficients found when the figures for the fifty-eight cities reporting 
the first year were used. 

In the discussion which follows, the coefficients referred to 
are always the corrected coefficients, unless it is specifically 
stated that other coefficients are meant. I believe that the 
corrected coefficient more nearly expresses the relationship which 
actually exists among the various items correlated than does 
any other figure. 1 

The first question which our coefficients enable us to answer 
concerns the relationship of the total cost per pupil to the prin- 
cipal items of the budget. Does an increased cost per pupil 
mean a proportionate increase in the amount spent for teaching 
and supervision, for janitors' salaries, for text-books and sup- 
plies, for fuel, and for repairs; or is the relationship between 
the total cost per pupil and the various items of the budget 
closer for some than for others ? Examining our coefficients we 
find that the relationship between the total cost per pupil and 
the cost for teaching and supervision is expressed by a coefficient 
of + 100 % (see explanation under Table XXVII), i. e., the 
amount spent for teaching and supervision is determined by 
the total amount spent per pupil. If a small total amount per 

1 The true relationship between any two items in the budget for these 
cities is the relationship which would be found if we had perfect measures 
of the cities' tendencies to spend money for school; such, for instance, as 
their budgets for forty or fifty years. The effect of chance deviations of 
any single year from the cities' general tendencies is to bring the calcu- 
lated correlation from its true value toward zero. By the Spearman 
formulae we estimate the true relationship ( 1 ) from the obtained relation- 
ship and the amount of deviation of one year's budget from another 
year's, or (2) from the difference between the relationship obtained from 
one year's budget and that from two or more years' budgets. For the 
theory of the correction see, in general, Thorndike, Mental and Social 
Measurements, pp. 128 and 129, and in detail C. Spearman, on "The 
Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things," American 
Journal of Psychology, January, 1904. 



84 City School Expenditures 

pupil is spent, we may expect a correspondingly small amount 
per pupil for teaching and supervision; if a large total amount per 
pupil is spent, we may expect a correspondingly large amount 
per pupil for teaching and supervision ; if the cities were ranked 
in order on the basis of total amount spent per pupil, and then 
in order on the basis of the amount spent per pupil for teaching 
and supervision, we would expect to find that the rank of the 
cities would be the same for each item. The next closest rela- 
tionship is that for text-books and supplies, which gives a co- 
efficient of + .955. The others are, in order, janitors' salaries, 
+ .716; fuel, +.522; and repairs, + .246. In general, these re- 
lationships show that the amount spent per pupil for teaching 
and supervision, and for text -books and supplies, corresponds 
very closely to the total amount spent per pupil ; if the cost per 
pupil is above the average, we may expect that the amount 
spent per pupil will be high for these items, and any diminution 
in the total amount spent per pupil is likely to be accompanied 
by a smaller expenditure per pupil for these purposes. 

The coefficients found for janitors' salaries and fuel show 
a less close correspondence. From the relationship here we may 
infer that the rank of any city above or below the median in 
total cost per pupil might be compatible with various ranks 
for janitors' salaries or fuel, which would tend to be approxi- 
mately three fourths of the rank in total cost per pupil. 

The item of repairs is least closely related with the total cost 
per pupil. This is as we might have expected. The fact that 
a school system is expensive does not increase the cost of re- 
pairing the buildings, except in so far as the labor necessary to 
do the work may cost more in those cities which are able to 
spend the large amount per pupil. We might expect the ex- 
pensive city to keep its buildings in better repair than the poorer 
cities, which, with the difference in the cost of labor mentioned 
above, would seem to account for the coefficient of +.246. 

The fact that we find a direct relationship between the total 
cost per pupil and the cost per pupil for each of the principal 
items of expenditure makes it clear that, in general, an expen- 
sive school system is expensive because it spends more money 
for everything, and that an inexpensive school system is one 
that retrenches all along the line. However, the fact that cer- 
tain of the items are less closely related to the total cost per 



City School Expenditures 



85 



pupil than others does indicate that these items will probably 
not be found to increase or decrease in a proportion equal to 
that of the items showing a closer relationship, nor in propor- 
tion to the increase in the total cost per pupil. 

Table XXXVIII shows just how an increased or a decreased 
total cost per pupil affects the principal items of the budget. 
The figures given refer to dollars, and are calculated from the 
average amount spent for each item for two years. The data 
are from thirty cities reporting for the school years 1 902-1 903 
and 1 903-1 904. 

TABLE XXXVIII 



2% 






H 

Average for the five 
cities nearest the 
median $29.00 

First group of five 
cities above the me- 
dian group 31.00 

Second group of five 

cities 34.10 

The two cities having 
the greatest expense 
per pupil , ... 51.70 

Average for the five 
cities nearest the me- 
dian 29.00 

First group of five 
cities below the me- 
dian 27.70 

Second group of five 

cities 25.50 

The three cities having 
the smallest expense 
per pupil 20.80 



$17.80 $2.20 

19.20 3.20 
21.80 2.30 



.00 $1.90 $1.80 $1.90 $1.60 



22.40 1.80 1.30 
24.10 2.20 1.80 



1.90 1.30 
2.20 1.30 



30.80 5.40 36.20 2.80 4.80 2.20 2.00 



17.80 2.20 20.00 1.90 1.80 1.90 1.60 



18.20 1.30 
15.70 2.40 



19.50 1.90 1.60 
18.10 1.50 1.60 



1.50 1.30 
1.40 .90 



13.60 1.60 15.20 1.10 1.10 1.50 .60 



EXPLANATION OF TABLE XXXVIII 

The first line of the table gives the average total cost per pupil and the 
average amount spent for each of the principal items of the budget, for 
the five cities which have a total cost per pupil nearest the median total 
cost per pupil. The next line gives the same information for the group 
of five cities having the next highest total cost per pupil. The next two 



86 City School Expenditures 

lines are explained in like manner. The fifth line repeats the first line. 
The sixth line gives the average total cost per pupil and the average ex- 
penditure for the several items of expenditure for the five cities which 
have the next lowest total cost per pupil below the median group. The 
next two lines are explained in like manner. 

From this table (XXXVIII) the relationships already shown 
by the coefficients of correlation given in Table XXXVII are 
made clear. In general, the table shows that an increased cost 
per pupil means an increased expenditure for each item, and 
that a decreased total cost per pupil is accompanied by a de- 
crease in the amount spent per pupil for everything. An in- 
crease of two dollars in the total cost per pupil (see line 2) is 
accompanied by an increase of $2.40 per pupil in amount spent 
for teaching and supervision, and a decrease in janitors' sal- 
aries, text-books and supplies, and repairs, while fuel remains 
the same. In the next group, however, with an increase in 
total cost per pupil above the median group of $5.10, teaching 
and supervision show an increase of $4.10, janitors' salaries and 
fuel show an increase of thirty cents each, text-books and sup- 
plies remain the same, and repairs decrease thirty cents per 
pupil. The next group, with an increased total cost per pupil 
of $22.70, gives an increase for teaching and supervision of 
$16.20, an increase for janitors' salaries of ninety cents, an in- 
crease for text-books and supplies of $3, an increase for fuel 
of thirty cents, and an increase for repairs of forty cents per 
pupil. 

By examining the part of the table giving the expenditures 
for groups of cities spending less than the median group, we 
find the decrease in all items more constant than was the in- 
crease for the cities spending more than was spent by the median 
group. The very fact that the city spends less than the average 
probably means that it would be very difficult to keep the ex- 
penditure in any one item up to the average without eliminating 
other necessary expenditures. On the other hand, a city spend- 
ing more than the average can put the additional money in any 
place where the demand, of one kind or another, may be 
strongest. 

Let us return again to a consideration of the relationships 
given in Table XXXVII. The relationship (+ .746) between 
teaching and supervision and janitors' salaries tends to confirm 



City School Expenditures 87 

the observation made above with reference to -the relation be- 
tween these items and the total cost per pupil. We may not 
expect janitors' salaries to correspond so closely to the total cost 
per pupil as do teachers' salaries. Apparently there are causes 
other than those (the cost per pupil of teaching and supervision) 
which influence the amount per pupil spent for janitors' salaries. 

The coefficients for teaching and for supervision with text- 
books and supplies (+.737 and +.869, respectively), indicate a 
closer relationship between the cost per pupil for supervision 
and for text-books and supplies than exists between the cost per 
pupil for teaching and for text-books and supplies. 

That the relationship between supervision and repairs is 
negative (-.128) might seem to imply that high-priced super- 
vision means better care of buildings. The coefficient of super- 
vision correlated with teachers' salaries is + .366. This is rather 
smaller than one might have expected. It is rather natural to 
suppose that high-priced supervisors would want high-priced 
teachers, and that a city spending a large amount per pupil for 
teachers would spend a correspondingly large amount for super- 
vision. The small coefficient found for supervision correlated 
with fuel (+.11), seems to indicate that while greater expense 
for supervisors increases the amount spent for text -books and 
supplies (see coefficient for supervision with text-books and 
supplies), it has little in common with the expense for fuel. 

The relationship between janitors' salaries and fuel, and 
janitors' salaries and repairs, is expressed by coefficients of 
+ .531 and +.219, respectively. It will be remembered that 
fuel is more closely correlated with the total cost per pupil than 
is janitors' salaries. This being true, it would seem that the 
correspondence between janitors' salaries and fuel might be 
accounted for by the fact that they are both determined largely 
by the total amount spent per pupil. It was found also that 
supervision and repairs show a negative relationship, and here 
we find a positive relationship between janitors' salaries and 
repairs nearly equal to the relationship between repairs and the 
total cost per pupil. Apparently costly supervision means 
more for economy in repairs than does a large amount per pupil 
spent for janitors' salaries. 

The next table (No. XXXIX) gives the coefficients which 
were calculated on the "per cent, of total" basis. 



88 City School Expenditures 

These coefficients show what effect the spending of a certain 
proportion of the money available for one item has on the pro- 
portion spent for other items. 

TABLE XXXIX 

Pearson Coefficients of Correlation calculated on the per cent. 

of total basis. 

° 3 oScS <u w u u%^ 111.5 <u w.s m 

■3 5 >^o2- >-^ m ")£ > ? £ >«h.«-5 

s£ £ "C 2 ° m u « <u 8J.+5 C 2d"£ G S? °-n 

S-2- -a £ ™ £<-■ ■§ >>-3 o ° -a-d ° -3 >-3<» 
-SeS l| •«;§ . 2^-2 «~ .§§- J&Sg 

Teaching and Supervision 

correlated with Janitors' 

Salaries - . 356 - . 30 - . 25 - . 43 - . 48 

Teaching correlated with Text- 
Books and Supplies - . 746 - . 46 - . 09 - . 59 - . 12 

Janitors' Salaries correlated 

with Fuel -.024 -.03 +.12 -.33 +.26 

Janitors' Salaries correlated 

with Repairs +.155 +.17 +.12 +.48 +.13 

Supervision correlated with 

Text-Books and Supplies ... + . 203 + . 17 + . 17 + . 27 + . 01 
Supervision correlated with 

Repairs . -.409 -.28 -.06 -.38 +.03 

Supervision correlated with 

Teaching -.983 -.68 -.54 -.69 -.67 

Supervision correlated with 

Fuel.... -.333 -.20 -.17 -.03 -.02 

Repairs correlated with Fuel . . + . 195 - . 03 + . 003 + . 12 + . 23 

In this table (XXXIX) the significant thing is not so much 
the size of the positive or negative coefficients as the order, the 
relative closeness of relationship or opposition among the various 
items. Rearranging the table on this basis and calling the 
median relationship zero, and transmuting the others on this 
basis, the following table is derived: 

Transmuted 
Coefficients. 

Supervision correlated with Teaching — . 983 — . 650 

Teaching " " Text-Books and Supplies . . -.746 -.413 

Supervision " Repairs — .409 — . 076 

Teaching and Supervision correlated with Janitors' 

Salaries -.356 -.023 

Supervision correlated with Fuel — . 333 

Janitors' Salaries correlated with Fuel — . 024 + . 309 

" Repairs +.155 +.488 

Repairs correlated with Fuel + . 195 + . 528 

Supervision correlated with Text-Books and Supplies . • + . 203 + . 536 



City School Expenditures 89 

I believe that the transmuted coefficients more nearly ex- 
press the true relationship than do those originally found, for 
we must have expected a negative relationship between any 
two items, because a larger proportion than usual spent for one 
item leaves a smaller proportion of the total to be divided 
among the other items of the budget. So far as the coefficients 
obtained enable us to judge, this negative relationship, due 
simply to the fact that a larger proportion of money than usual 
spent for any one item leaves a smaller proportion for other 
items, is approximately the relationship half-way between the 
extremes, — the relationship between supervision and fuel, 
— .333. If we call this relationship zero, the transmuted rela- 
tionships give us, as nearly as we can obtain them, the relation- 
ships between the other items freed from this constant error. 

Let us consider the transmuted coefficients. Suppose a city 
spends more than the usual proportion for supervision, what 
other items may we expect to find receiving an unusual propor- 
tion of the money spent? The coefficient of + .536 between 
supervision and text-books and supplies indicates that the 
probability is that a city which spends a large proportion for 
one of these items will spend a large proportion for the 
other, — that we may expect to find some cities unusual both in 
respect to the proportion spent for supervision and that spent 
for text-books and supplies. The positive coefficients between 
janitors' salaries, fuel, and repairs, no matter which two are 
taken together, shows that in cities where one of these items is 
proportionately large, the others will probably receive more 
than the usual proportion. Comparing these coefficients with 
those found for teaching and supervision with janitors' salaries 
and supervision with fuel, it is suggested that some boards of 
education are interested particularly in the physical side — the 
buildings, their care, etc., — and that this over-emphasis on this 
side means less money for the purely educational activities. 
The very large negative coefficient for supervision correlated 
with teachers' salaries would doubtless be reduced if more 
accurate reports of the amounts spent for each of these items 
were available. It is in this relationship between the two items 
that any mistakes in reporting in either an amount which really 
belonged to the other would be most apparent. Any amount 
reported as teaching which should have been given as supervi- 



90 City School Expenditures 

sion would make the amount for teaching too large and the 
amount for supervision too small, and the opposite would be 
true if an amount which should have been reported as teaching 
were given as supervision. In either case, such mistakes would 
make this particular coefficient show a more pronounced negative 
relationship than actually exists. Such mistakes would not, 
however, have a like effect on other coefficients, where the in- 
crease or decrease in the item of supervision or teaching has no 
effect on the other item correlated. The fact that the amounts 
given for teaching or supervision may in one case be slightly too 
large and in another slightly too small, means that, except when 
the two items themselves are correlated, the mistake in one 
direction would be offset by the mistake in the other. 

The relationship between teachers' salaries and text -books 
and supplies ( — .413) is particularly interesting when con- 
trasted with the relationship between supervision and text- 
books and supplies (+ .536). If a city spends an undue 
proportion for supervision we may expect that an unusually large 
proportion will be spent for text-books and supplies ; while the 
opposite condition holds for the proportion spent for teaching. 
Possibly the relationship between supervision and text -books 
and supplies is simply that the highly paid supervisors are able 
to get appropriations for books and supplies, and that poorly 
paid supervisors do not have the ability or influence, rather 
than that the supervisors have much to do with the actual use 
or waste of supplies furnished. On the other hand, if there is 
anything that a good teacher wants, it is plenty of books and 
supplies of the right quality, consequently it seems strange that 
there should be this opposition in the relative proportions spent 
for these two items. However, expensive teachers may effect 
economy by the proper use of materials, and poorly paid teach- 
ers may be the most careless. There is nothing that hurts a 
book so little as using it properly, and it is conceivable that 
the best teachers may actually use fewer supplies than those 
with less ability. 

Table XL gives the correlation of the first and second years' 
figures on both the cost per pupil and per cent, of total bases. 
These coefficients give us some idea of the relative stability of 
the various items of the budget. They are used also in making 
the Spearman correction. 



City School Expenditures 



9i 



TABLE XL 

First and second year's figures correlated, 
the school years 1902-03 and 1903-04. 



Thirty cities reporting for 
l 



I — Cost per Pupil Basis 

Total cost per pupil correlated with total cost per pupil + 

Supervision and teaching correlated with supervision and teaching -j- 



Supervision 

Teachers' salaries 

Janitors' 

Text-books and supplies 

Fuel 

Repairs 



supervision . -\- 

teachers' salaries -j- 

janitors' " + 

text-books and supplies.. + 

fueL + 

repairs + 



II — Per Cent, of Total Basis 



Supervision 
Teachers' salaries 
Janitors' " 
Text-books and supplies 
Fuel _ 
Repairs 



92 
89 
69 
79 
90 
89 
17 
34 



Supervision and teaching correlated with supervision and teaching + . 56 



supervision + . 58 

teachers' salaries -j- . 51 

janitors' " + -80 

text-books and supplies . -j- . 65 

fuel +.34 

repairs + • 54 



The total cost per pupil gives a coefficient of + .92, showing 
that the amount per child spent does not vary much from year 
to year, — the expensive city remains so, and the city spending 
little does not suddenly devote a much larger proportion of its 
revenues for schools. Almost as constant as the total cost per 
pupil are the amounts spent for janitors' salaries, text -books and 
supplies, teaching and supervision, giving, as they do, coeffi- 
cients of +.90, + .89, + .89, respectively. The items of teach- 
ing and supervision, when taken alone, show greater variation 
(coefficients of + .79 and + .69, respectively) , due largely to the 
fact that, in reporting, amounts properly belonging to one item 
were reported under the other, rather than in a change of policy 
as to the relative amount to be allowed for teaching and for 
supervision. 

As one might expect, the amount spent for repairs varies 
more than any of the items mentioned above (a coefficient of 
+ .34 was found). A large amount spent for repairs one year 
means a smaller amount the next year, rather than an equally 
large amount. That the coefficient for fuel is as low as + .17, 
might seem to indicate that fuel in excess of that which is used 
is often bought and paid for out of a single year's budget, rather 



92 City School Expenditures 

than that there is any very great difference in the value of the 
fuel actually consumed each year. 

When we come to consider the proportion of the total which 
is spent for any one item for two successive years, we find the 
variability rather greater than for the amount spent per pupil. 
This is due to the fact that, while the amount per pupil spent 
for any one purpose remains fairly constant, any additional ex- 
penditure for some new item which increases the gross amount 
spent, or any diminution in any item of expenditure, affects the 
proportion which this item is of the total amount spent. It is 
interesting to note that in the relative constancy with which a 
given proportion is spent for any item, janitors' salaries lead, 
followed by text-books and supplies, supervision, teaching and 
supervision, repairs, teaching, and fuel (see part II of Table 
XL). 

Table XLI gives the coefficients for the total cost per pupil 
correlated with the per cent, which each item is of the total. 
These coefficients tell us what effect a larger or smaller expendi- 
ture per pupil may be expected to have on the proportion which 
is spent for any one item of the budget. 

TABLE XLI 

Pearson Coefficients of Correlation 

The total cost per pupil correlated with the per cent, which each item 
is of the total. The average cost per pupil and per cent, of total for two 
years is used as the basis of calculation. 

Total cost per pupil correlated with per cent, of total spent for: 

Teaching and Supervision — . 05 

Janitors' Salaries — . 06 

Text-Books and Supplies + .35 

Fuel.. -.22 

Repairs + . 13 

Apparently the total cost per pupil may not be expected to 
affect the proportion spent for teaching and supervision and for 
janitors' salaries. Cities spending a large amount per pupil do 
not necessarily spend any greater proportion of their money for 
these purposes than do cities spending a smaller amount per 
child. (The coefficients of —.05 and —.06 are so small as to 
be practically negligible.) On the other hand, the positive co- 



City School Expenditures 93 

efficient of + .35 for text-books and supplies indicates that there 
is a direct relationship between the total amount spent per pupil 
and the proportion which is spent for this purpose. We may 
expect an expensive city to spend a larger proportion of its 
money for text-books and supplies than does the poorer city, 
even though we may infer from this coefficient that the increase 
in the proportion spent for this purpose will not be proportion- 
ate to the increased cost per pupil. The negative coefficient for 
fuel shows that the proportion spent for fuel decreases as the 
total cost per pupil increases. The most expensive city will 
probably spend a smaller proportion of its money for fuel than 
a poor city. That the proportion spent for repairs should give 
a positive coefficient of + .13 when correlated with the total 
cost per pupil seems to indicate that there is some tendency for 
the more expensive cities to spend a larger proportion for re- 
pairs than the less expensive city — possibly the cities spending 
the greater amount per pupil do keep their buildings in better 
repair. 

Table XLII gives the average salary received by elementary 
and by high school teachers, and the average daily wage re- 
ceived by carpenters, bricklayers, and day laborers. This in- 
formation was calculated from two years' data for the thirty 
cities reporting for the school years 1 902-1 903 and 1 903-1 904. 
The figure given for elementary and high school teachers' sal- 
aries was derived by finding first the average salary paid to 
each class of teachers for each year separately by dividing the 
gross amount spent for each item by the number of teachers 
(see form sent to superintendents), and then the average for the 
two years was taken. In a similar manner, from the report 
given by city superintendents on the blank filled out by them, 
the average wage of carpenters, bricklayers, and day laborers 
was calculated. The information concerning the daily wage of 
carpenters, bricklayers, and day laborers is probably less exact 
than we might wish, but sufficiently accurate, I think, to show 
whether or not any relationship exists between the amounts 
paid to this class of laborers and to teachers. It is for the pur- 
pose last mentioned that these data are given. Coefficients will 
be given to show what relationship exists between the wages 
paid carpenters, bricklayers, and day laborers and the salaries 
paid teachers. 



94 City School Expenditures 

TABLE XLII 



5 
6 
8 

13 
14 

15 
16 

20 

27 
28 
29 

30 
31 
32 

34 
35 
36 
37 
39 
40 

4i 
42 
43 
45 
48 
52 
54 
55 
56 
57 



5 cS $■£ 



»" 



£12 3HJ2 pa 

m-3 Jo g>u 

g nj g,cj gu-, 

^ ^ |° 

<^ <! < 

i 955.5 $643.1 — 

747.1 407.5 $2.50 

836.4 691.6 2.50 
930. 540.8 2.62 

820.8 425.9 3.00 

747.9 528.2 3.00 

770.5 386.4 3.12 

736.8 537.2 2.75 
563.3 350.6 — 

931.2 460.4 2.75 

760.9 452.5 2.50 
1,332.8 574. 3.50 

877.6 373.6 2.50 

801.8 538.1 3.25 

819.7 513.2 2.50 

702.8 482.5 3.00 

603.3 487.5 3.87 

657.1 381.7 2.90 

724.9 418.1 2.50 

732.9 366.2 2.50 

663.2 429.1 2.75 
776.5 486.1 2.62 

805.4 499. 2.60 
835.8 504.1 2.62 
558. 415.2 3.00 

876.7 594.5 2.85 
884.2 557.5 3.37 

645.8 399.6 2.75 

887.5 557. 3.50 
1,124.1 662.7 3.50 



v$ 

0.2 

bo « 
gM 

< 


as 

gP 

< 


3.25 


$1.75 


4.00 


2.00 


3.75 


1.75 


4.50 


2.00 


4.00 


1.87 


3.68 


1.50 


4.00 


2.50 


3.50 


1.50 


3.25 


1.75 


4.65 


2.25 


3.50 


1.62 


4.25 


2.00 


3.00 


1.50 


4.00 


1.50 


3.50 


1.50 


4.00 


1.85 


3.25 


1.50 


2.50 


1.50 


4.50 


1.75 


3.30 


1.50 


3.55 


1.75 


4.00 


1.93 


3.75 


1.50 


4.00 


1.50 


4.25 


1.75 


3.50 


1.50 


3.67 


2.45 


4.70 


2.25 



Before we give the coefficients showing the relationship be- 
tween teachers' salaries and the wages paid carpenters, brick- 
layers, and day laborers, it is interesting to note the variability 
in teachers' salaries, as shown by the table given above. The 
average salary of the elementary school teachers varies from 
$350.60 in city No. 27 to $691.30 — almost twice as much — in 
city No. 8. The average salary paid high school teachers varies 
from $558 in city No. 48 to $1332.80 — almost two and a half 
times as much — in city No. 30. Whatever we may believe 
about the difference in the cost of living, no one would be will- 
ing to maintain that the cost of living in one of the cities is 



City School Expenditures 95 

double that in another of those covered by this study. In no 
case does the highest daily wage paid a carpenter, bricklayer, 
or day laborer, as reported, equal double that paid to the poor- 
est paid laborer in any one of these occupations. 

TABLE XLIII 

Pearson Coefficients of Correlation 

Salaries of teachers correlated with the daily wages of carpenters, 
bricklayers, and day laborers. The average salary of teachers and the 
average daily wage for two years are used as the basis of calculation. 

Elementary Teachers' Salaries correlated with: 

Carpenters' Wages + . 28 

Bricklayers' Wages + . 44 

Day Laborers' Wages + . 57 

High School Teachers' Salaries correlated with: 

Carpenters' Wages + . 25 

Bricklayers' Wages + . 41 

Day Laborers' Wages -j- . 5T 

High School Teachers' Salaries correlated with Element- 
ary Teachers Salaries + . 63 

The coefficients given above show an increased direct rela- 
tionship between teachers' salaries and the daily wages paid 
artisans and day laborers as we go from carpenters, to brick- 
layers, to day laborers. If the wages paid to day laborers are 
an index of the cost of living, we may infer that cost of living 
does enter as a determining factor in the amount paid to teach- 
ers ; not that the amount of salary paid to the teacher corres- 
ponds exactly to the cost of living, but that the tendency will 
be for cities where living is high to pay rather more than the 
average salary, and for cities where the cost of living is below 
the average, to pay its teachers less than the average. 

TABLE XLIV 
Coefficients of correlation calculated on the cost per pupil basis, the 
figure used in finding the cost per pupil being half-way between the 
average number of pupils in daily attendance and the average daily en- 
rolment. Forty-nine cities, reporting for the year 1902-1903. 

Total cost per pupil correlated with Teaching and Supervision . . + . 93 

" Janitors' Salaries -j- .82 

" Text-Books and Supplies . . 4- -71 

Teaching and Supervision " " Janitors' Salaries + .65 

Teaching " " Text-Books and Supplies . . +.66 

Supervision " " " " .. +.34 

" " Repairs + . 15 

" " Teaching + . 15 

Janitors' Salaries ■ " " Fuel + .45 

" " " Repairs + .4Q 



96 City School Expenditures 

If these coefficients are compared with those given for the first year's 
figures in Table XXXVII, they will be found to agree in the main with 
them. Whatever variation is found is due largely to the fact that on the 
basis on which this table is computed, nine cities had to be omitted be- 
cause they did not furnish the necessary data for the average daily 
enrolment. 

Table XLV, which follows, shows the relation between the 
proportion of pupils attending elementary and high schools, and 
the proportion of the total amount spent for salaries which is 
used for the salaries of the two classes of teachers. The table 
also gives the number of students enrolled per teacher, which 
offers another basis for comparison as between elementary and 
high school teachers. The number of pupils as given in this 
table is in every case the average as found from two years' total 
enrolment figures. In determining the number of teachers, and 
in determining the amount of money spent for each group, kin- 
dergarten teachers and teachers of special subjects, such as 
nature study, manual training, etc., are counted as elementary 
school teachers. 

EXPLANATION OF TABLE XLV 

The first column gives the average total number of pupils enrolled in 
all day schools; the second, the number enrolled in elementary schools, 
including kindergartens; the third, the number enrolled in high schools. 
The fourth, fifth, and sixth columns give total amount spent for all day 
school teachers' salaries, the amount spent for elementary school teach- 
ers' salaries, including the salaries of kindergarten and special teachers, 
and the amount spent for high school teachers' salaries, respectively. 
The seventh and eighth columns give the per cent, of the total number of 
pupils enrolled who are enrolled in the elementary school, and the per 
cent, of the total amount spent for teachers' salaries which is spent for 
the salaries of elementary school teachers. The ninth and tenth columns 
give the same information for high schools. The eleventh and twelfth 
columns give the number of pupils enrolled per teacher in both ele- 
mentary and high schools. 

The proportion of the total expenditures, or of the amount 
spent for salaries, which is spent for the teachers of one class or 
the other has little significance, except as we are able to com- 
pare it with the proportion of the total number of pupils which 
are enrolled in each class of school. That a city spends 18 % of 
the total amount spent for maintenance and operation for high 
school teachers' salaries, means one thing when the city enrolls 



City School Expenditures 97 

17 % of its total number of pupils in high schools, and quite 
another thing when the city enrolls 8.5 % of the total number 
in high schools. 

The number of pupils enrolled in the elementary schools 
varies from 71 % to 96 % of the total number of pupils en- 
rolled, while the money spent for the salaries of elementary 
school teachers varies from 56 % to 91 % of the total amount 
spent for salaries of day school teachers. The median for ele- 
mentary teachers' salaries is 78.8 % of the total amount spent 
for salaries, while the median for the enrolment in elementary 
schools is 90.1 % of the total enrolment in day schools. 

For high schools the variability for the proportion of total 
enrolment has a range of from 4 % to 29 %, while the high 
school teachers receive from 9 % to 44 % of the money devoted 
to teachers' salaries. The median for high school teachers is 
21.2 % of the total amount spent for salaries, while the median 
for the enrolment in high schools is 9.9 % of the total enrolment 
in day schools. In seventeen out of twenty-nine cases, the 
proportion of the total amount spent for salaries which is spent 
for high school teachers' salaries is two, three, or even four 
times the proportion which the high school enrolment is of the 
total enrolment. Of the remaining twelve cases, seven show a 
proportionate expenditure for high school teachers' salaries 
almost double the high school's proportion of the total number 
of pupils. 

The number of pupils enrolled per teacher in the elementary 
schools varies from 35 to 54, while in the high schools the num- 
ber varies from 17 to 43. The median number of pupils per 
teacher is 44 for the elementary schools, and 27 for the high 
schools. In general, the enrolment per teacher for the element- 
ary schools is about one and one-half times the enrolment per 
teacher in the high schools. 

If we may take the amount spent for salaries as an index 
of the relative cost of high and elementary school education, 
we must conclude from the data given above that secondary 
education costs two, three, or even four times as much per pupil 
as elementary education. What we would like to have is the 
expenditures for high schools separate from those for elementary 
schools in order to be entirely certain of the relative cost of 
elementary and secondary education. I believe, however, that 



TABLE XLV 









Ti ** 


*> 1 1* 


. -. --n 


Xtr, O 


Q 

u 


,8s £ 




u- 
0,fl a) 
bo 
t.W wS en 


S3 
■go 

™>£ . 


- to 


DO J? 

s *** 

m (2 CD bo . 

el-gsa 


(< y > " 

g >< 


JB 

£ 


CSTT3 bo 

3 a* 


J3 . <U cS 


CSS 


"d V; S iS 




3 c S j> °s 
5 <u 3 > 




Z, 


H 


2; 


% 


H 


<J 


< 


5- 


4,286 


3,796 


490 


86,850 


65,350 


21,500 


6. 


2,200 


1,911 


289 


31,128 


22,396 


8,732 


8. 


2,436 


2,139 


297 


39,570 


30,845 


8,725 


13- 


4,049 


3,765 


284 


60,395 


51,545 


8,850 


14. 


1,738 


1,598 


140 


25,932 


28,957 


4,975 


IS- 


5,587 


5,038 


549 


75,531 


62,137 


13,394 


16. 


1,220 


1,136 


84 


17,285 


13,432 


3,853 


20. 


2,969 


2,662 


307 


42,436 


33,184 


9,252 


27. 


2,167 


1,831 


336 


22,595 


16,413 


6,182 


28. 


2,231 


2,143 


88 


28,583 


23,927 


4,656 


30. 


3,747 


3,428 


319 


76,185 


59,628 


16,557 


31. 


3,651 


3,433 


218 


43,992 


36,193 


7,799 


32. 


2,999 


2,728 


271 


41,268 


35,268 


6,000 


34- 


1,867 


1,684 


183 


30,843 


24,285 


6,558 


35- 


5,162 


4,407 


755 


82,351 


66,891 


15,460 


36. 


1,633 


1,350 


283 


24,439 


18,102 


6,337 


37- 


3,255 


2,886 


369 


30,491 


23,262 


7,229 


39- 


1,981 


1,641 


340 


30,652 


22 362 


8,290 


-40. 


2,138 


1,510 


628 


30,963 


17,402 


13,561 


41. 


4,533 


4,022 


511 


54,086 


42,803 


11,283 


42. 


4,214 


3,798 


416 


48,937 


37,687 


11,250 


43- 


3,094 


2,636 


458 


46,301 


36,244 


10,057 


45- 


4,142 


3,867 


275 


60,237 


48,537 


11,700 


.48. 


1,161 


1,098 


63 


12,099 


10,424 


1,675 


52. 


4,978 


4,680 


298 


58,192 


50,555 


7,637 


54- 


1,949 


1,803 


146 


38,300 


31,650 


6,650 


SS- 


2,440 


2,201 


239 


21,762 


18,200 


3,562 


56. 


2,126 


2,029 


97 


39,725 


36,175 


3,550 


57- 


3,072 


2,692 


380 


74,495 


55,645 


18,850 



TABLE XLV (Continued) 



>. 

o 

o 

£ 
z; 


Per Cent, of the Total 
Number of Pupils 
who are Enrolled in 
Elementary Schools ; 
Average for Two 
Years. 


"3 

H 

CO 

i 

+» 

a 

V 



u< 

V 


Amount Spent for 
Salaries ; that is, 
Spent for Element- 
ary Teachers' Sala- 
ries ; Average for 
Two Years. 


Per Cent, of the Total 
Number of Pupils 
who are Enrolled in 
High Schools; Aver- 
age for Two Years. 


"c8 
O 

H 

*o 
a 

6 

u 
C4 


Amount Spent for 
Salaries ; that is, 
Spent for High 
School Teachers' 
Salaries ; Average for 
Two Years. 


»3 . 

m JS 
r3 O 
0,u O 
3 O.C 
O,"*-' 

<-ij3 ™ 


ft,VM 

O <- w 

JJ 
»° <*.G 

55 


5- 


88.5 




75.2 


11.5 




24.8 


43 


22 


6. 


86.9 




72.0 


13.1 




28.0 


50 


25 


8. 


87.7 




77.9 


12.3 




22.1 


47 


27 


13. 


93. 




85.3 


7. 




14.7 


38 


30 


14. 


91.8 




80.9 


8.2 




19.1 


35 


23 


15. 


90.1 




82.3 


9.9 




17.7 


48 


31 


16. 


93.1 




77.6 


6.9 




22.3 


35 


17 


20. 


89.6 




78.3 


10.4 




21.7 


49 


28 


27. 


84.4 




72.6 


15.6 




27.4 


47 


31 


28. 


96.1 




83.7 


3.9 




16.3 


44 


18 


30. 


91.4 




78.2 


8.6 




21.8 


38 


26 


31. 


94.1 




82.2 


5.9 




17.8 


38 


24 


32. 


90.9 




85.4 


9.1 




14.6 


47 


36 


34- 


90.1 




78.8 


9.9 




21.2 


39 


23 


35- 


85.4 




81.2 


14.6 




18.8 


38 


34 


36. 


82.8 




74.2 


17.2 




25.8 


42 


27 


37- 


88.5 




76.3 


11.5 




23.7 


54 


34 


39- 


82.9 




72.8 


17.1 




27.2 


37 


30 


40. 


70.6 




56.2. 


29.4 




43.8 


49 


34 


41. 


88.8 




79.1 


11.2 




20.9 


47 


30 


42. 


90.2 




77.0 


9.8 




23.0 


56 


29 


43. 


85.3 




78.3 


14.7 




21.7 


40 


36 


45- 


93.4 




80.6 


6.6 




19.4 


43 


19 


48. 


94.7 




86.1 


5.3 




13.9 


48 


21 


52. 


94.0 




86.9 


6. 




13.1 


50 


35 


54- 


92.5 




82.6 


7.5 




17.4 


35 


20 


55- 


90.2 




83.6 


9.8 




16.4 


54 


43 


56. 


95.4 




91.1 


4.6 




8.9 


46 


24 


57- 


87.7 




74.7 


12.3 




25.3 


38 


22 



Li If 



99 



ioo City School Expenditures 

the item of salaries is a good index, first, because the item of 
salaries forms from 60 % to 80 % of the entire budget; and, 
second, because other expenditures for books, supplies, and ap- 
paratus are enough larger, in proportion to the number of pupils 
enrolled, in the high school to offset an expenditure of the same 
amount per pupil for janitors' salaries, fuel, repairs, etc. 

CONCLUSION 

This section will give a brief general summary of the results 
which have already been obtained, and some practical sugges- 
tions which grow out of these facts. First, with regard to vari- 
ability, it will be remembered that the cost per pupil for the 
maintenance and operation of schools in the cities considered 
varies from $9 to $55. That this variation in the total cost per 
pupil is not due entirely to the relative wealth or poverty of 
the different communities is shown conclusively when we know 
that the cost of schools in cities in the United States varies from 
6 % to 46 % of the total city expenditure. 1 An equally striking 
variability is found in the cost per pupil for each of the prin- 
cipal items of expense. Even when cities spending about the 
same amount per pupil are considered, it is found that the dis- 
tribution of the money among the several items seems not to 
show anything like the degree of uniformity which might be 
expected (see page 44). It is found that the percentage of the 
total cost of maintenance and operation which is spent for 
teaching and supervision varies from 44 % to 82 %; and what 
possibly seems more astonishing is the fact that the city spend- 
ing the smallest proportion for teaching and supervision, spends 
the smallest total amount per pupil. Janitors' salaries amount 
to from 3 % to 9 % of the budget ; one city spends 3 % of its 
money for fuel and another spends 12% for the same purpose ; 
text-books and supplies cost from 1 % to 13 % of the total cost 
of maintenance and operation. 

Fuel costs three times as much per pupil in one city as in 
another. The expenditure per pupil for the salaries of high 
school teachers varies from one and one half to four times the 
cost per pupil for salaries of teachers in the elementary schools. 

1 These results are from an unpublished study by Mr. E. 0. Elliott, 
and were obtained by using the data found in the bulletins of the Com- 
missioner of Labor. 



City School Expenditures 101 

In our consideration of relationships we found that an ex- 
pensive school system is one that spends more than the usual 
amount for all of the principal items of expense. A large posi- 
tive relationship exists between the proportion spent for super- 
vision and the proportion spent for text-books and supplies. A 
lack of relationship between the total cost per pupil and the 
proportion which is spent for teaching and supervision seems 
to indicate that additional expenditures may not mean, as they 
should, a greater proportion for those items which count most 
for the efficiency of the schools. 

These and the many other facts which are given above con- 
cerning the variability and interrelation of the principal items 
of expense for schools, prove conclusively that the problem of 
the business administration of city school systems is not only 
a real and vital one, but also that we may expect that the 
schools will increase in efficiency when the money devoted to 
public education is distributed among the various items in the 
best possible way. As has been stated, our final test can only 
be found by testing the pupils in the schools in order to rate 
different systems for efficiency, and then we must conclude that 
those cities which get the best results for a given expenditure per 
pupil are the cities which properly distribute their money. How- 
ever, before any such comparison among the various cities can 
be made, we must have more detailed information with regard 
to the way in which the money is used. If we may not ask city 
superintendents or boards of education to report their expendi- 
tures according to a certain fixed form, it does seem that we 
might insist that their reports tell us for just what purposes the 
money is spent. A report which gave the various items of ex- 
pense in detail would enable any one to compare cities accord- 
ing to whatever classification seemed best. Nor would such 
reports be without their value to the persons making them. 
If the administrator of schools is to secure additional money, 
either for purposes for which money is already used, or for any 
new field of activity, he can have no better argument than to 
be able to show just what results are obtained in his own and 
other cities from a given expenditure. Suppose, for example, 
that a superintendent wishes to introduce manual training or 
domestic science ; he will be met immediately by the statement 
that these "fads" are expensive and not at all necessary as a 



102 City School Expenditures 

part of public education. Now, if it were possible for him to 
show from the reports of other cities that the additional ex- 
penditure was comparatively small, and that results obtained 
in the way of retaining pupils in school were considerable, he 
could make an argument which would have some weight. 

If the greatest economy is to be had, it is essential that the 
accounting should show just how much money is spent for each 
item, and, within a system itself, how various schools compare. 
It should be possible for the administrative officer to tell just 
what the cost per pupil is for each school within the system, 
and to compare the relative cost with the relative efficiency as 
found by testing the pupils of each school. No great corpora- 
tion would to-day continue to spend money for purposes for 
which no results could be shown, and no school system should 
so report its expenditures that it is impossible to tell how much 
the educational policies cost which it advocates and carries out. 

It seems hardly right to expect that a superintendent whose 
time is already overcrowded, and who has as his assistant a 
clerk worth $500 a year, should be asked or expected to origi- 
nate or carry out any such policy of accounting as has been 
suggested above. But when we recall again the great variability 
which is found for those items of expense which might be ex- 
pected to be fairly constant, we feel that it is not out of place 
to suggest that the salary of a competent business agent or 
director might be paid out of the savings which would be made 
by the proper administration of the business affairs of the 
schools, and that the efficiency of the schools might be increased 
as the result of the proper distribution of the money spent. 
When the best judgment is used in the purchase and use of 
supplies and equipment as well as in the selection of teachers 
and" supervisiors of instruction, when the money which is spent 
for schools is properly distributed among the various items of 
the budget, when expenditures are shown in reports in connec- 
tion with the results obtained, then our schools will be found to 
have improved in efficiency, and then they will be able to com- 
mand the respect and increased support of the community. 



City School Expenditures 103 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to those 
whose aid has made this study possible. It is only through the 
efficient cooperation of very many friends that such a study as 
this can be undertaken. It is, therefore, with a sense of pe- 
culiar obligation that I express my thanks to all those who 
helped in the collection of data. Among them are: Messrs. 

F. W. Atkinson, Emmet Belknap, N. L. Bishop, D. C. Bliss, 

G. N. Bliss, Eugene Bouton, H. O. Bowers, C. B. Boyer, F. D. 
Boynton, A. D. Call, J. H. Carfrey, W. E. Chancellor, J. H. 
Christie, R. J. Condon, F. E. Corbin, J. M. Crane, A. D. Dunbar, 
J. G. Edgerly, Thomas Emerson, J. A. Estes, W. B. Ferguson, 

E. H. Forbes, J. B. Gifford, J. C. Gray, I. F. Hall, E. S. Harris, 

F. J. Heavens, E. J. Hitchner, C. L. Hunt, L. R. Hunt, T. R. 
Kneil, H. W. Lull, A. B. Mather, F. E. McFee, John Millar, H. 
T. Morrow, C. H. Morss, W. A. Mowry, F. R. Page, W. D. Par- 
kinson, F. E. Parian, Freeman Putney, E. S. Redman, R. R. 
Rogers, A. L. Safford, F. J. Sagendorph, S. R. Shear, E. E. Sher- 
man, Randall Spaulding, R. A. Taylor, W. H. Truesdale, J. F. 
Tuthill, J. C. Van Etten, C. F. Walker, Robt. Waters, E. C. 
Willard, J. I. Wood, and I.E. Young. To these and the many 
others who rendered valuable assistance in the collection of 
material, the author acknowledges his indebtedness. 

Whatever merit the treatment of the data which were col- 
lected has, is due to the teaching of Professor Edward Lee 
Thorndike, to whom the author is also indebted for very many 
most helpful suggestions and for constant criticism. 

For assistance in the numerical work, without which this 
study could not have been completed for some months to come, 
the author is indebted to Miss Jeanette F. Seibert, Assistant in 
Psychology in Teachers College. 



io4 City School Expenditures 



VITA 

The author of this dissertation, George Drayton Stray er, 
was born at Wayne, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, on No- 
vember 29, 1876. He received his early education in the public 
schools of Pennsylvania, graduating from the Lewistown High 
School in 1893. He was a student at Bucknell University 
during the year 1896-1897, and at the Johns Hopkins Univer- 
sity from 1900 to 1903, from which last-named University he 
received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1903. He was a 
student at the Columbia University Summer School in 1903; 
student at Columbia University and Earl Scholar in Teachers 
College during the year 1 903-1 904; and Fellow in Education in 
Teachers College, Columbia University, during the year 1904- 
i9°5- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 324 838 8 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 324 838 8 



